October 14, 2024 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Evening. It is 6 o'clock. 6 o'clock on October 14, th 2024. I am calling to order the transportation advisory boards. October meeting before we get into anything, as is the unfortunate new custom. I must note, that we have had an additional 2 people killed by traffic violence. Within. Since our last meeting. In the affecting the boulder community. Julianne Hurlihy was killed just outside the city limits. She was riding back home on her bike on Broadway. So she was killed by a strike to the head by a mirror of a pickup truck. both traveling southbound, as I understand, just. But just before the city limits on North Foothills highway. and then within a week of that 10 days or so.

[1:01] Jennifer Newman was struck and killed by a driver on, also on Broadway, this time near the Rayleigh intersection. Both of these incidents are still, as I understand, under investigation. We don't have a full police report on what happened. but nevertheless, we know the basics, and we, of course, continue to strive toward Vision 0. We clearly will not get there this year. But the work of staff and of Tab and of the city continues to try to make our basic transportation system safe for everyone. And it is a failure on a number of levels, but particularly just a systemic level that people can't go about their daily business outside of their own homes without daily facing the threat, and sometimes more than the threat

[2:00] of being killed by some element of our transportation system. I have nothing further to remark at that time. I have just at this time. I have just tried very hard in my tenure on tab to highlight, that this keeps happening. We, of course, now have a new police dashboard. That shows us not just the fatal incidents, but serious injuries as well. That's looking like already at least 24 to date in this year of people killed or seriously injured. On our transportation network. And I can only hope that we will be able to correct this unfortunate trend in a way that doesn't obscure the fact that these are humans, these are real people. They have families, their daughters, their mothers, their sons, their uncles. I know in particular, Trini is not yet. On this evening she may or may not join us. But it's it's part of her life's work as well to highlight these events.

[3:08] That being said, we are going to proceed with the meeting. I will also. Note Jennifer Oakes is not with us this evening. She had to resign her position as a member of the Transportation Advisory Board. So at the moment we are a 4 Member Board, I have no information at at this time about whether City Council intends to appoint someone in the interim. and before the regular round of appointments will happen in March of next year. But at the at this time, because we're a 4 member board and a quorum is only 3 members. I do. We do need to be cognizant that you know your attendance and your participation in tab meetings is critically important. In particular, if if 2 of us don't show up, we cannot do our business, and all of the people who are on this call right now. All of the members of the public who are watching their efforts will be frustrated. So

[4:06] do take that to heart. But in the in the meantime, thank you for being here. And let's carry on. Let's do the technical rules. Sydney. Share my screen. Quick. Thank you for joining the Transportation Advisory Board meeting to strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security. The following rules will be applied for this meeting. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the city of Boulder activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time for speaking is limited to 3 min. No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding. and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting, using that person's real name. Any person believed to be using a name other than the one they are commonly known by, will not be permitted to speak at the meeting.

[5:02] Please use the raise hand function to be recognized for public comment. If you are on your phone you will need to press Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. No video will be permitted except for city officials, employees, and invited speakers, or presenters. All of all others will participate by voice. Only. The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule. The Q. And a function is enabled, and it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should be used for technical online platform related questions only if an attendee attempts to use Q&A. For any reason other than seeking assistance from the host. the city reserves the right to disable that individual's access to chat. Only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen. During this. Thank you. Okay. So we will carry on. Normally, we would approve the minutes from previous meetings at this point, but they weren't distributed in time for us to have sufficient time to review. So we're gonna

[6:11] differ approval of the August and September Tab meeting minutes until next month. And so we will turn to those in November, which means we will already get to item 4 on the agenda, which is public comment members of the public. We do not have any public hearing items tonight. So this would be your chance to to speak to tab on transportation related issues about the city. You'll have 3 min. Please raise your hand if you would like to address the board. And Sheila, if I might before we continue on to public comment. I just wanted to say a couple of words. If that's all right. What you said at the beginning of the meeting here. Sure. Thank you very much. Valerie Watson, interim director, transportation and mobility. I wanted to thank you. Chair, for your words about our the 2 recent crashes that affected our community.

[7:09] As you know, we've we've done in the past. We always strive to bring any kind of information that we learn from our partners in police and fire to this meeting, and at this time both of the crashes that you referenced Tila have ongoing investigations. And so the information that you may have seen in the media around these 2 crashes is what we know again, we are ever committed to our vision. 0 goals, you know. One death is too many. You also note the new dashboard that was built in partnership with our police department that should also offer all of us more timely information that can be publicly shared, and so grateful to our partners in police who have put that together and welcome taps feedback on that dashboard, and and the information that's displayed there.

[8:07] teal. You also raised a question, switching gears to the selection process for tab members. It is our understanding, as of today that both the seat that will be up your seat in 2025, as well as the seat that was vacated by Jen Oaks, would go through the same annual, you know, process for for soliciting applications for tab members. So that will happen here in the winter with appointments in March of next year. Okay, so there's not going to be an interim appointment occasionally that happens if someone leaves quite early in their tenure. But I had no information one way or the other. Yeah, thank you for asking. The timing of of this vacancy is such that we will use that you know, normal timeline and combine it there. Thank you.

[9:04] Alright, Tab, don't get sick all right. We will open it up now to public comment. Thank you, Valerie, for that. I generally, when, when marking these fatal crashes, I try not to put the director on the spot to provide anything other than you know what what I already know. So thank you for for chiming in there. Yeah. And for public comment, it looks like Lynn has their hands. So. Lynn, I've given you permission to speak. Intimidated by the the 7 rules. I wish you could just have people sign check that they've read the rules. and that would shorten the meeting considerably. And also it's very intimidating when you regularly testify, and it's repeated again and again, and endlessly. So if you could consider that that would be cool.

[10:04] and so I've got to shake myself to think correctly after that. like insult to my intelligence like it's it's just intimidating reading that every time before I speak. It's like. Speak at your own risk, like I don't need to hear that, and I do need to approve of it, so let me check it off. The woman. unrailie to my understanding. stared right into the eyes of the guy in the car. If it was truly a suicide, then that puts an onus on vision 0 and the tab. And that that is not realistic. that particular incidence, if that's the case, I just thought, would 4, 58 in the morning.

[11:05] She could be out running. you know, to train for the 26 mile Marathon, or something, and that other people should know that they might be killed in that situation, too. But I don't think that's representative, considering what I suspect of the circumstances. And this is why it's so important to really do a rapid evaluation and and get the right information out at the same time. Sometimes those things are conflicting right? But I think from the San sushi mobile home situation. I know some people there. I haven't been able to talk to them yet, but I think there's enough people around that if you chat it up, you can deduce things better than the police can, because we're the community. And we know our communities. And those people there at San Sushi knew her and knew what would have been coming down, and

[12:08] you could have collaborated something that that precludes actually her privacy and the privacy of her family to the common good, which is to understand what actually happened, so that others can beware. so far as general commuting around town and hearing from my friends. Things are worse than ever. I heard the other day. Thanks, Lynn. And I don't think there's anyone else who has a receipt right now. Do you have. Okay, thank you, Lynn. I usually give it a few extra seconds, but I also see no additional hands, so I will go ahead and close public comment

[13:07] for this meeting, and then we will move along. Our 1st substantive item this evening snow and ice response annual update. Thank you. Tila. Valerie Watson. Again. Interim director, transportation and mobility. I'd like to just say a few words before the team comes on to present this item. So what I'd like to highlight is that an interdivisional team is here tonight to provide this update. That means staff working together collaboratively across the different corners of our department. They're here to provide this update on our 2024, 2025 snow and ice response program. So I know Tab has received updates about this in the past. but tonight is a really great opportunity for you to see the culmination of of this work to review the program and gear up for the future, and how it will be implemented in the upcoming season.

[14:11] So Staff has been working for the past 2 years to develop this new data, driven framework to guide how the city can best use its resources. And and this is an approach that is better aligned with city policies and community expectations. The Operations plan that you're going to see tonight achieves most of the recommendations from our engagement and work on this within our existing funding and staffing, and it outlines a new storm size framework for clearly communicating the department's level of service to the community. With that I'll turn it over to Scott. Hi, thank you, Valerie. Good evening, Tab. My name is Scott Schleck. I'm the transportation maintenance manager. and 1 min here and now we've got our slides up all right. Tonight. We're going to present, as Valerie said, the finalized snow and ice response operational plan.

[15:06] That plan was developed through our snow and ice response review project as, and we're also going to share a brief overview of the previous snow season. Next slide, please. So here is that preview of last year's snow season. It was a fairly normal year. Had a similar number of events and similar number of shifts as well. We did show a slight decrease, as you see, in spending for the last season. I think that's primarily attributed to fewer full crew deployments than we had in previous years. And and I think that that's really attributed to using the storm size approach that we developed through this review process. We started implementing some of that on the back end last year.

[16:02] and we're also this year in the process of naming snow plows through the Boulder Valley School district. This is our 3rd year, and it's something that we all greatly enjoy and appreciate all these fantastic name submissions from all of the students next slide. When we began this project in the fall of 2022, we were intent on reviewing the snow and ice response program service understanding. The service levels, the industry service levels and the community's preferences and needs and to consider changes to better meet the goals and expectations key issue. That we wanted to resolve was the previous program service levels not being clearly defined. This led to inefficiencies and increased cost to deliver the snow services. Also, the community has a range of expectations for snow clearing service levels, and we were not able to provide a clear understanding of what services were provided, and why

[17:08] developing this new program provides clear service expectations for both staff and the community. as we will detail later in the presentation, where and when to expect plowing will be available to the community and easy to understand. Graphics and accompanying interactive maps can be used to plan routes and determine what streets will receive service based on the forecasted amount of snow. We're currently in the final stage of the project which is informing the community of our 2024, 25, operational plan and implementing operations with the 1st snow of the year. Next slide, please. our updated program purpose is focused on equity, safety, mobility, and customer service to support multimodal travel and accessibility.

[18:04] Our updated goals support this and more clearly detail what we what we're planning to achieve. When winter storms arrive throughout our community engagement, we heard a lot of comments about transit and bicycle travel. Our updated program reflects that feedback by assigning higher priorities to some on-street bike lanes and addressing protected bike lanes and pedestrian routes during any size. Winter storm event. Next slide a revamp of previous program based on street class data, driven approach that incorporates clearly defined criteria to determine what gets plowed when the response time frames are achievable. With our current resources updates to data on a recurring basis will be had through this program. Examples of that are changing infrastructure. So new protected bike lanes, coming online or protected intersections will will do a reevaluation and make sure to include that

[19:13] focusing on the amount of snowfall makes communicating the city's response to storms more understandable to the public. Our consultant Olson created this graphic and the tool that we use that informs the levels of service in this graphic there is a sidewalk at sidewalk asterisk at the bottom there. That just shows that the roadside paths adjacent to residential and commercial properties are to be cleared of snow and ice. no later than 24 h after the snowfall. This is the 1st of several graphics that will be used throughout the winter to inform the community of our response approach. We will further break down each section later in this presentation.

[20:02] And with this we also note that on street bike network is within the street priorities as well. This also helps us determine which resources we need to deploy, since different types of facilities require different methods for clearing snow. Our hope with this is that the storm size approach will help us address The the issue of a lack of snow drivers and and highly qualified drivers and applicants for those positions. It helps us by setting clear expectations and improving employee morale. It may also make the driver positions more attractive to potential candidates, since storm response will be more predictable next slide. So these are our street mileage plowed in our previous or in our recommended

[21:01] our recommendations for the program, and what we were able to incorporate within our current resources. So we did add additional 11 miles of street segments to ensure connectivity and provide plow drivers with safe and efficient turnaround points, and those 11 miles weren't included in the recommendations in total, the 2425 program will clear snow from 425.2 lane miles of streets, which is within 5 miles of the existing or previous program. with a greater number of streets designated as 1st priority. There is an increase of streets that will see a higher level of service. Next slide, please. beginning with the streets and small storms up to 3 inches. First, st priority criteria are all street segments that are high traffic, severe critical highway and arterial emergency response routes and or serve high ridership transit routes with stops of 50 boardings and alightings are greater per day.

[22:06] And those will all be cleared within the 1st within 12 h of snow, stopping streets directly accessing Rtd via and Bvsd bus facilities. Also have service. The map on the right shows this season's 1st priority routes. These maps are best viewed on devices with larger screens, but also function on phones and tablets. and and it is interactive. You can scroll in and and see exactly where you want to see or what your route is. with the 1st priority. Our goal is to clear to bait bare pavement. For all of the streets included in the 1st priority. One of the things that we heard from Tab previously was a consideration of safety, and how we respond to storms. We did analyze these 1st priority routes to confirm that all street segments on the vision. 0 Action Plan. High risk network will be cleared as 1st priority.

[23:06] First, st priority streets are primarily serviced by tandem axle plows, including a winged plow. We do include one smaller plow vehicle that is used to address some smaller streets for bike connectivity. Next slide, please for larger storms. First, st priority streets receive pretreatment, which is an anti icing agent that we do ahead of storms and that they would be continue to be cleared within 12 h after snow stops during medium snow events between 3 and 8 inches. Second Priority Street see service, and would be cleared of snow within 24 h after snow stops criteria for second priority include all remaining transit routes remaining critical emergency response routes heavily used, alleys and steep streets with a grade of 6.5% or more, or yes, or more.

[24:06] These second priority routes are added to the map on the right. during medium and large storms our full plow fleet is deployed. This allows us to simultaneously provide service to all street types. Next slide. Finally, during large storms. 1st and Second priority streets would continue to be cleared. 3, rd priority streets are added, which consist of street segments with grades between 4 and 6.5%. These 3rd priority streets would be cleared within 48 h after snow stops for forecasted large storms. 1st and Second Priority streets will be pretreated or anti-iced the boulder lines on the 3rd prior are the 3rd priority streets while 1st and second priority are faded to de-emphasize those streets in this map.

[25:02] With that I will pass it along to my partner, Daniel Sheeter, to walk through the bike and pedestrian areas. Thanks, Scott, and good evening, Tab members. My name is Daniel Sheeter, principal transportation planner, and diving right in this slide, provides an overview of the recommendations that have been incorporated into the 2425 Operations Plan for the on-street bike network kind of following a similar pattern to what Scott shared on the streets. So, as you can see, we've been able to incorporate most of the recommended Lane mileage. but it was not possible to meet 100% of the recommendations with our with our current resources. So in total, the 2425 program will clear snow from 180 lane miles of the on street bike network. Which goes a little beyond what you see on that slide. Just to account for operational needs like turnarounds, and the photo on the right is from last winter, since we don't have any snow yet this season.

[26:03] but that shows snow cleared from the tall curve protected bike lanes on Baseline road. And so let's look at what will be cleared on the city's bike network, beginning with storms, with up to 3 inches of snow snowfall. And so to do that, we'll come back to our small Storm Graphic, which will be pretty familiar by the end of this presentation. You'll see the 1st priority criteria of the core arterial network which covers the city's growing network of protected bike lanes highlighted here. This includes other related elements, like protected intersections and floating bus stops that are common along corridors with protected bike lanes. And this map displays all of these 1st priority streets that that have bike facilities. And so that includes some of those you know, higher traffic streets or streets with transit and emergency response routes that Scott covered, if they have a bike facility on them like painted bike lanes. And an example of this is Table Mesa and and Valmont road being being highlighted on on this 1st priority. Bike network map.

[27:14] multi-use paths are also a key part of the city bike network and are shown as well in green and per the table. All paths maintained by the Transportation Mobility Department will be cleared to bare pavement within 12 miles within 12 h. This component of the program has the same level of service as previous seasons. so moving on to medium storms. This is where there's a significant significant expansion of the bike network being cleared as crosstown bike routes are added as a criteria. This new bike route designation was developed through the project to be an input to the bike criteria in order to identify gaps in the existing plow network from preceding seasons and improve connections between on and off street bike facilities.

[28:03] You'll see the term again later in tonight's agenda, when you receive an update on the city's new bike map. 88% of recommended second priority bike network streets are being operationalized for this winter, and this map represents that winter bike network for storms between 3 and 8 inches of snowfall and creates many continuous lower stress bike routes that connect neighborhood, school shopping and job centers. First, st priority routes will, of course, continue to be cleared with these medium storms and all multi-use paths. Will be cleared within 24 h for for these these medium storms. I don't have a slide for large storms, as it relates to the bike network. But since that only adds moderately steep streets, it has kind of limited impact on the bike network, but a few more miles are are added there. If they overlap with those moderate, moderately steep streets.

[29:05] and then finally related to the bike network, some additional key gaps identified in the on street bike network are being added to the 2425 Operations plan within the existing budget as an operational feasibility trial. These gaps were highly requested for snow clearing during community engagement and will better connect the network of lower stress bike facilities that are accessible during the winter due to staffing limitations. These segments will be cleared at the end of snow response operations. The 4 pilot segments are displayed on the map in yellow alongside the on street bike network. our on street bike network plow routes and the multi-use pads that we just reviewed. And so this pilot, just to demo the interactive nature of the presentation which was linked in the packet. This includes the connection between 19th Street and 26th Street, via Upland Avenue and Tamarack Avenue, in North Boulder. 15th Street, just south of Iris Avenue.

[30:03] Juniper Avenue, east of 26th Street. and then finally Oldtail Road and Gapter Road along South Boulder Creek Staff will be testing a variety of methods to clear these segments this season, and will track positive and negative feedback received from the community to inform operations in future seasons. transitioning to the final component of the program. Shoveled areas for this season. City contractors will clear snow from almost 200 locations. volunteers and partner partner agencies like Rtd and Cu boulder. Clear snow from about 150 bus stops to complement what we do with our contractors. 100 and 58 of these locations are small or constrained spaces where using larger snow clearing equipment is not feasible.

[31:00] such as select curb ramps and Median Refuge Islands, and these are shown on the map to the right in red. And then there are an additional 40 High ridership bus stops that are also cleared by contractors. We're currently working with members of the National Federation for the Blind and the Center for People, with disabilities to identify an additional 5 stops to be added to the program that do not meet the ridership threshold as part of communications for this season. We'll also expand promotion of the shovel. A stop volunteer program with particular priority placed on medium ridership stops with more than 35 riders per day. The map shows the full network of 187 bus stops that are proposed to be cleared this season by city contractors in blue, volunteers, in red and Rtdncu in yellow. I would also like to share an update on analysis of the recommended program in comparison to the city's racial equity index.

[32:04] So when looking at each program component, whether that be streets, the on street bike network or shoveled areas. There are increases in service across all equity priority levels with the highest increases in the highest priority equity areas. These findings are detailed in the memo that accompanies the presentation and then moving on to next steps. As Scott mentioned, staff are finalizing materials to communicate program changes to the community. And so those storm size graphics you saw tonight will hopefully be familiar. Come next spring. There's also a new interactive map web map in development right now. And we're putting the finishing touches on that, and that will display the plow routes that correspond to each each storm size. You know that small medium, large framework that'll be launching in the next few weeks. And we'll we'll kind of sync up with with the graphics that we we displayed tonight.

[33:06] and that brings us to our one question for the Board this evening. Do you all have any questions about the recommendations that informed the 2024, 2025 Operations Plan that we walked through in this presentation. Thanks very much. Dan and Scott, that's that's helpful and concise. Lovely, Mike. I see your hand is up. Yeah, just a clarification. seems like you have about a a 10% increase in number of lanes that are gonna have higher priority, and 5. Additional transit stops. That will be cleared, that's all. Great. one would assume that would require some increase in the budget. But it looks like you're saying, this will be budget neutral. I'm just wondering how that works. Yeah, that that is correct. It's budget neutral. A lot of our savings. We plan to find in both salary savings because of vacancies, and also with the storm size approach, we will be,

[34:16] likely doing fewer full shift deployments and full staff deployments based on the the size of storms. Okay. Just just for a little context. Mike. you know, I think that at the they think the number was around 1.3 or 1.5 million dollars a year ish for for snow and ice removal. But occasionally we've had some pretty significant storms. We're talking, you know, 12 or 15 inches at a time within a 48, or 72 h period, and that kind of snow response can be 400,000 $500,000. So in the past and so to have a more

[35:02] fine grained and measured approach about, you know, when you actually call out all the troops, I think, is is a reason that this could be considered sort of a a better planning exercise, for when and where to really spend a lot of money. On responding to some of the storms and to articulate to the public, well, we're not quite at that, you know, at this threshold. So I can. That's that's somehow I can understand that this might be fairly budget neutral. I think it's just a better way to to plan for spending money. That being said, you know, prior councils have warned with global warming, we're likely to see more big snowfall events and more volatility and and change fluctuation between those. So this is, I think, a great place to start. and obviously Staff is continuing to pay attention to. To how many of these events, and how extensive the response is. And so I wouldn't imagine that this is stuck. This is actually just a really

[36:04] good attempt in the last couple of years to quantify and figure out when and where and how much the response is warranted, and then how much it costs. I imagine it would change in the future if we figure out that that's not quite keeping up. but that that would probably be part of a ongoing budget. So this whole storm, size, response framework is. Pretty new. Updated, now. Yeah. Darcy, you had your hand up. Well, I did have my hand up, but I found the answer to my question in the in the memo. But but I do want to. Just say, I'm I'm really happy to see the collaboration with the Center for people, with disabilities to really prioritize those top stops that they've identified, because this is what we've heard for years that people who have mobility differences and and use mobility devices are trapped in the winter so and can't use transit unless those stops are cleared. So I'm really glad to see that.

[37:11] It was a super great segue to my question. Which is, I mean, I think, the map where you're showing the 108, 158 contracted shovel areas. Those are, you know, dots on some pretty clearly defined corridors. Right? And I think, part of my concern, and an ongoing been happening for several seasons now, not just with me, but with tab generally is. It's not just about the conditions at the bus stop, but people have to get to the bus, stop and there are certain known trouble spots. Certainly we heard a lot about it with this outreach on Iris Avenue. right? The southern sidewalk of Iris Avenue

[38:00] is routinely very spotty in in how it gets cleared because that falls on individual property owners. and some of them are behind a fence, and, like, you know, actually would have to travel a quarter mile to get to the shovel area. And so my question to staff is, what would it take? I presume it would take something like an ordinance change to, instead of just kind of whacking a mole at individual spots, sort of designate as part of a top or second priority corridor areas that the city will take over. the responsibility, or at least the oversight for clearing snow for pedestrian and people with mobility. Access challenges along these corridors that we've already figured out are are troublesome. Is there a way that the city could take over, either directly or indirectly, be more robust about clearing and then charging property owners for failing to clear snow and ice from these sidewalks. On these corridors.

[39:11] Hi, Trini! Yeah, I can. I can start to answer that. And Scott feel free to jump in. Yeah, as we all know. And you mentioned Tila. That is a requirement of our municipal code for the property owners on that frontage. To clear. We also have, you know, certain types of volunteer programs that are available for especially people who are older adults or limited mobility, different mobility to avail of those volunteer resources. I think, as you can tell, with the overall intent of this program design is that we're really needing to stay within the. you know, allocated budget for for snow and ice response. At this time. It's not something that we can pursue because of those funding limitations.

[40:10] And you know, I think it is a very common approach for cities across the front range. That that we also have. That's in alignment with that. So I. But I definitely hear the concern around noncompliance. We're very fortunate to have a fantastic co-compliance team that can. You know, if if these types of violations are reported, we'll go out and investigate. Once they issue warnings, we hear anecdotally from that team that you know, there's typically very good compliance after they go through their process of working with property owners. So we would encourage folks in the community tap members. Anyone who sees you know, a segment that really is you know, of high value for staying clear where there's noncompliance to please report that through the city's co-compliance team there's a a way to do that on the website.

[41:10] Be an inquire boulder, ticket. That's right, that's correct. And so we can always track down that link and and put it here in the chat or send it out to tab after the meeting. But I think that would be. One thing to consider is that we already have mechanisms to address noncompliance. And we just have to be really mindful of our allocated budget, Scott. Anything else you'd like to add. Yeah, I would just add that, you know, I I think what we've heard from our code compliance. Folks is that they're also resource constrained and and they only have so many staff to to enforce. So I think that's a lot of why it falls to a report, and and they and then in turn look into it. So. I I think that that reporting is probably the most valuable thing we could do if we do identify those areas. And and as Valerie spoke to I I we're open to the the conversation and and looking at other ways to do that. But

[42:12] W. You know, always we'll we'll have to live within the the confines of our our budgets. I have no beef with anything that either of you just said, but I'm going to restate the question. I'm a fairy godmother waving a wand. What would it take for these constraints to go away so that the city would be able to take over responsibility on networks where we've identified? There's a public need for transportation for people with limited mobility for pedestrians. I'm not talking about, you know, a particular corner in my neighborhood that's very low volume. I'm talking about places where transit goes

[43:02] and where people who are walking have to rely on a network of spot by spot, contractors or volunteers when people driving don't have to do that. What would it take for us to live up to our stated priorities, putting pedestrians 1st to make sure that pedestrian pathways and the ability not just to stand at the bus stop, but to get to the bus stop using a walker using a wheelchair. using a, you know, mobility, device, post surgery. What would it take for that to happen? Would it be an ordinance change by city council? I'm hearing it would definitely be different budget allocations. But we spend city dollars, taxpayer dollars on snow plows that clear the roads. and we are leaving pedestrians, and particularly the pedestrians who have a hard time getting around the winter left in the lurch.

[44:05] Right. I think what it would take is a constellation of of measures that would all have to, you know, be changes to the way things are done today. But I would. First, st you know, offer that we. you know, we don't really have an accounting of what the situation is in terms of compliance. That would be, I think you know, something that could be a way to approach. It is really understanding the landscape out there. And you know that that's something that this team could think about for future snow and ice response program efforts. But again balancing our our workload, balancing our work plan, and and our resources as well. So yeah, I certainly hear you tonight, Tila. I know we've heard from previous tab members about this topic. And yeah, we we hear the comment, thank you.

[45:07] I think that this would be a subject really ripe for exploration in the next transportation, master, plan, update, or whatever whatever master plans are going to be called now. because I do think this is an area where we have quite demonstrably not lived up to our stated priorities to put the pedestrian first, st and if we did that as a city and as a community, we would actually be spending city funds to clear the sidewalks, at least on high priority corridors. We've identified based on motor vehicle movements and on transit movements. We would be doing the same for the pedestrian level users on those areas. I I would really recommend that this be part of the the next real big city, wide thinking about how we prioritize, how we spend and how we demonstrate our values on how people get around.

[46:03] Because it's not like snow is, you know, occasional. Here. We count on it every year we budget for it. We plan for it. But we're not really planning sufficiently well for pedestrians. Trini, do you have any comments, anything further from any tab member on on this item. They're just here for the update and for feedback, and that was mostly what I wanted to just get on my soapbox for this evening. No, I I agree with you, Tila. I think that there should be a way. Maybe we could do like a little work session where we could deep. You know a little bit further, and understand how we can make this happen, and how we can kind of like create an alliance with the city, because I know that that's something that we all share. I mean, we do prioritize pedestrians, and we all want everybody to get from Point A to Point B safely, so maybe we could help sort out what these difficulties are right like. How it is that we can I don't know.

[47:05] go over the hoops that are there and together figure it out, you know. I think that would be like a good thing to kind of plan on and and yeah and explore. Cause I think you bring up really great points. And and I don't think anybody in the city would not be like supportive. I think that it's just kind of figuring it out, because this is just the way it's been done forever or for as long as I have ever known. So who knows? Let's figure out new strategies to work together. Just because this is the way Thornton does it. Oh, no! I. I I know it's it's very, very common to leave snow clearance up to the to the individual property owner. and for small residential areas. I I don't know. I mean. screens are important everywhere, but there are definitely places where we leave it up to property owners when they have

[48:00] a much when when negligence in this manner has a much bigger public impact. I suppose. Absolutely. And I think you know. Valerie, where is there any where older tickets go? Like? Is there a way of looking back for the last several years at where and how many you know sidewalks no clearance complaints are like. Would that be a way to start instead of just trying to reinvent the wheel? Now. I think that's an excellent suggestion to see what data we do have internally from our system, our our service request system. Inquire boulder you know things like that. To to get a sense if there are any locations that are, you know, more common than others. And and if I might just respond to Trini's comments a minute ago in the spirit of you know what? What are the things we could figure out together. And, Tila. You just mentioned this in your remarks. This is a common approach across many cities, and that's because of resource constraints right? But in cities where they may do it differently. I would imagine that they have financing strategies for that different approach.

[49:11] and would remind this Board that the city is embarking on a citywide long-term financial strategy. And that effort is really, in a, you know, just broad brush way, thinking about what are new revenue sources that could be generated for a variety of city services, and of course. transportation along with other departments, will be participating in this citywide effort. And so that might be one consideration for this board when you are, you know, in your role as tab advising counsel is, this could be an example, if you will, of the type of level of service that is desired by the community that we're unable to provide with current funding allocations.

[50:04] And so, you know, exploring new fees or revenues that could you know, bolster the the budget so that when when we're doing our, you know, current approach to budgeting, and this is, you know, a conversation you hear our city have with council quite often is that if if you want to increase funding allocations for one thing, you must find the other thing that you will decrease in exchange, and that is because we are just in an era of declining sales, tax revenues, etc, that that make for a resource constrained approach across the city. So I would just offer that for consideration by this board. I know that this is a topic you'll be taking up later tonight. Terrific. Thank you for that, Valerie. Appreciate it. Yeah, thanks, so much. Okay, anything else. Tab? Or we can move on

[51:02] seeing none. I think we're gonna move on now. Item, 6 presentation and feedback about amps. Yeah, I'll say a few quick words about this before I hand it over to the team. Thank you, Tila. So we're we're really excited to bring this item to you all tonight on Tab, because it represents cross departmental collaboration. And we're really proud of this work with our partners in planning and development services. you know, amps is a multifaceted approach for managing the future of parking in boulder, and it really combines off street parking with on-street parking and Tdm components, too, and all 3 of those components are really necessary for a sustainable approach into the future. This also allows for a more thoughtful approach to how we think about parking and its intersection with the built environment our land use. So you know, I think it's just one piece this, the amps effort that you'll hear about tonight. It's 1 piece of the puzzle to meet our larger transportation and climate goals, our multimodal goals.

[52:10] And you know, I think tonight you'll learn a lot more about this effort that that we're embarking on and look forward to the presentation from the team. I'll I'll hand it over. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Valerie. Hi, everybody! My name is Lisa Hood. I'm a principal city planner in our Planning and development Services department like Valerie mentioned. This is a a very nice cross departmental project. So I'm here with Chris Hageland from transportation and mobility. Who, you guys know, and Sam Bromberg from community vitality, and we have a presentation for you tonight where we'll go through. I'll go through some background on this project. The Amps project and then we'll dive into 3 different focus areas that actually align with the 3 different departments. And then we will offer our recommendations for scope. The scope of this project, and we hope to have a good discussion with you all about any questions or comments that you have related to that.

[53:10] So, starting with what are those 3 focus areas? The 1st is our off street parking standards. Second, is transportation demand management requirements. 3rd is the on street parking management strategies. And just because I love a visual. And I know you guys are very familiar with this. But just to make sure we're all on the same page of what we're talking about. Off street parking. When we talk about off street parking, we are talking about the parking that is provided on private property. And so this is the parking that's required often by zoning codes of cities throughout the country. It's usually in a ratio, so like a certain number of parking spaces are required for a different type of housing or different business. and that's where the off street parking standards come from, and that's what we'd be talking about, for on street. Now that's everything on the public right of way. So how we're using our public right of way to manage parking demand. That's that part of the topic. I think you guys are very familiar with the concept of Cdm, but generally all thinking through all the different strategies, for how people move about the community.

[54:20] whether that's walking, biking, taking transit, or even driving and making sure that we're doing that as efficiently as possible. This project amps the access management and parking strategy has been underway for quite a while. For 10 years. It was initiated in 2014. The actual strategy, the S. In the amps was adopted by City Council in 2017, and there were a number of implementation projects that were identified at that time and have been done in the time since then the Chautauqua Access management program or camp, the civic area parking management and Tdm programs. We did a review of

[55:00] of our neighborhood permit parking program, the Npp. Which is now under the residential access management program or ramp umbrella and acronym. And then the parking, pricing study. So there's 2 main implementation projects that are still that haven't yet been completed. The Off Street parking standard changes and the Tdm plan ordinance for new developments that were identified in the strategy just because they haven't been officially approved or completed yet. Doesn't mean there hasn't been work that's been going on back in 2014. We had phase. One of the parking and Tdm work where we simplified and reduced standards for lots of different types of uses around the city added more specific bike parking requirements at that time, and then in 2016, we actually were ready to bring to city Council recommendations for reducing the minimum off street parking requirements for many different uses. At that time city Council

[56:00] chose not to adopt any changes. They requested that we complete additional data collection that had been an important part of this whole project is looking at parking supply and utilization data. So they wanted to see more data before they made a decision. We staff completed staff in a consulting firm. Completed more data collection in 2018 and 2019, and kind of the phase 3. Part reinitiated the project. We are ready to bring things. Some recommendations to boards and council in spring of 2020. And so you all can guess that Covid hit. And the project was, paused indefinitely. And so, while there were a number of reasons for that, our staffing was reduced during that time, just kind of general capacity things. It was also a good time to kind of take a pause and see what the world was going to look like on the other side of Covid. It impacted so many things from a social economic. Every level of our community was impacted by Covid. And so this kind of gave the time needed to look back and see how the parking and transportation landscape changed, based on Covid. So

[57:14] at the kind of towards the end of last year, we picked the project back up our staffing levels were back up and things had kind of normalized and started working on this project again. And we're hoping to get this project complete by summer next summer. There's a number of policies that this project aligns with in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan so many that I can't even fit them on a slide. But they're related to built environment economy, transportation, of course, housing and local governance. The project also aligns really nicely with the transportation master plan, which I know you all are very familiar with, related to reducing Vmt. And greenhouse gas emissions, supporting vulnerable populations and improving mode share

[58:02] you would have seen in your packet. We have identified a few questions that we have for you just to kind of guide the discussion, asking for your feedback on the recommended scope that we'll go through in this presentation on those 3 different focus areas and then other comments and direction. First, st I want to give you just an overview of what we've heard from other groups. So in the last month or 2 we went to city council with a very similar presentation to the one that you're getting tonight got their feedback on the proposed scope recommendations. There's been general support for the recommended scope that you're going to see tonight with Council, encouraging us to continue exploring, eliminating minimum parking requirements. I'll talk a bit more about the State Bill later, but applying those, the elimination citywide, we talked about messaging related to parking requirements, Evs. Bike parking, shared parking lots of other great topics that we went through with them related to Tdm. We got some feedback to consider that more broadly than just new development, and then quantify and clarify those desired outcomes and strategies. Kind of those outcomes that align really well with the transportation master Plan as well.

[59:16] We also recently were at planning board and got general support from those board members for the staff recommendation, again supporting the elimination of parking minimums throughout the city and then also, we talked about modifying our bike parking requirements to account for larger bicycles and also electric bike charging and things that have become much more popular in recent years related to the Tdm. Ordinance. Some planning board members expressed a desire to use the ordinance to stimulate travel, behavior change, not just to mitigate impacts and expanding the multimodal infrastructure. And they did. Planning board did support a tiered approach which Chris will talk about on his slides to the ordinance, so that the requirements increase with the development size

[60:05] related to on street parking or the ramp part of this project. Planning board caution staff about restricting access to the public right of way, wanted to make sure that we were also focusing engagement on the population in our community who does not drive. And then there were also some comments about free parking kind of being seen as a subsidy that encourages driving, so we had a great discussion with both of those, both planning board and city council, and we're looking forward to having a great conversation with you as well. I'll kind of kick it off with the 1st focus area, talking about the off street parking standards. Then I'm going to hand it to Chris, who will talk through Tdm. And Sam will talk through the On street strategies. You all, I think, are probably pretty familiar with this, but I'll still go through the background of what off street minimum parking requirements are. It's something that almost every community has at least at some point had in their zoning code. And it's something that really proliferated after World War 2 World War 2 and Boulder at 1st adopted off street parking requirements in our 1954 zoning code.

[61:10] And, as you've seen throughout the country, parking requirements have significantly influenced urban form and development of cities in our country, it's also really impacted the mobility options that people have, because we've been developing for the last 70 years with these requirements to accommodate parking on the private property for the use like I mentioned before. It's typically a ratio. It's usually a number of spaces per square foot. It can be something slightly different, like number of bedrooms. Things like that. One thing to remember is that even though it's a ratio that seems scientific, it's not really a perfect science to establish these parking requirements. So they're kind of based on historical requirements. Looking at other cities, parking utilization, things like that. That's where these numbers come from. And they're not perfect in every situation.

[62:00] just giving a couple examples of how minimum parking works in boulders code right now. So for a retail use, that's 12,000 square feet. Say, that's a typical size of a small grocery store. We have a 1 to 300 square foot ratio. So one space for every 300 square feet. You need 40 spaces for that 12,000 square foot retail space, and that has to be accommodated on the private property on the development site. for residential and a 50 unit building with variety of different bedroom unit types in our residential, like high density, high density, residential zoning district, we would require 87 spaces. So that's kind of how the minimum parking requirement ratios work in Boulder, which is very similar to many communities around the country over time. Boulder has realized that. like, I said, this doesn't work perfectly the number. The math doesn't work perfectly on every site. So we've introduced parking reductions which will reduce the required number of parking spaces on a on a specific site. And right now this kind of been tweaked over time. But right now the maximum allowed. That's through an administrative process is a 25% reduction. Anything above that would require site review approval which requires planning board to approve

[63:19] as part of ramping up for this project. We looked at back through the data on parking reductions over the last 13 years or so, and we found that about 40% of our major development projects that have happened in that time included a parking reduction that was approved. So that's almost half of these big projects that all of these big projects that have happened in over the last decade have needed a parking reduction which shows that there's a significant mismatch between what our requirements are and what is needed on the actual sites. You've probably heard a lot about parking requirements already. Parking reform has been a really hot topic in the planning and zoning world. It's been a significant part of that conversation, especially since 2017, when Buffalo, New York, was the 1st 1st major city in the United States to completely eliminate minimum parking requirements from their zoning code. There's a great site called Parking Reform Network that tracks

[64:19] this. These kind of changes around the country, and they show that 78 communities around the country have completely eliminated parking requirements. 900 plus have reduced parking requirements, at least in some parts of their city. So it really is something that is becoming more and more common throughout the country, which it's been kind of a 70 year long 70 plus year long, mainstay part of most zoning codes in the whole country. So really significant changes over the last few years. States have also been taking note of this and passing legislation related to minimum parking requirements.

[65:00] and Colorado is one of them. So this year, in the in the State Legislative session, they passed House Bill 2413, 0, 4, which prohibits minimum parking requirements if the property is at least partially located within what they call the transit service area. and this only applies to multifamily residential development or the adaptive reuse reusing an existing structure for residential or use with majority residential. and they the transit service area. That city staff estimated, based on the bill. You can see at the right in the map at the right as kind of the blue area. And that's about 81% of city parcels since I created this slide. This, the State actually did produce their official map. And it's very similar to this. There's just one. I think it's just one route that we counted that they didn't count along Belmont so pretty similar numbers to what we expected. But again, a majority of the city is within the transit service area. The bill states that cities must comply by June 30, th 2025. So the timing aligns very well with this project.

[66:13] The reason that this has become so, such an important part of the planning and zoning conversation is that many studies have shown that local minimum parking requirements increase vehicle miles traveled greenhouse gas emissions and development and housing costs a study from Metro Denver showed that a surface parking space. So just a parking lot cost $10,000 per space to build, and a structured parking space adds $25,000 to the cost of development per space. And so if our if our requirements are so high, so far beyond what's actually needed, that's significantly increasing the cost of housing. I mentioned that data collection has been a really important part of this project. Over the last 10 years we have looked at over 16,000 parking spaces at 50 different sites throughout the city. Over these last 10 years we've looked at peak times off peak and specific times of interest.

[67:15] and for the next few slides. I'll just focus on the peak times. I just wanted to give a quick overview. There's a lot more detail that we attach in your packet tonight, and then I'm happy to answer any questions on this. But for the sake of time I wasn't going to dig too far into the data. But just kind of broad overview what we saw this year. So this is parking occupancy. So if a parking lot or parking garage was completely full, every single space was being used by a car, it would be at 100, and we looked at it based on different types of land uses to see what the differences were, you can see that some land uses like medical office are fairly highly utilized. But our mixed use areas are lower utilization, 38% and then even retail, which we have a lot of retail. Is only about 50 52% utilized. Right now.

[68:11] Oh, Tila, I see your hand. Thank you. Yeah, I had a question. Is this averaged over a 24 h period? Is it like, what's the time that we're looking at. Yeah, so it's it's peak time. Our consultant went and did it. So I don't know the particulars of everything. But yeah, it's the peak occupancy time. So and they went and did multiple counts to get like an average. Yeah. Thank you. And there's multiple. Yeah, there's multiple sites, I think, except for medical office, there's multiple sites for each land use. So some have like 8 or 14 or whatever. So it's an average of all of those sites, and what their occupancy was at peak time. Thank you so much. Yeah, thanks for that. Clarification. Sorry to interrupt. Yeah, no worries. So I just like I said, I have a lot more detail on those date on that. Those data points. If you want them. But kind of the key takeaways across all land uses. In our city. More parking is available than is used at peak times. It varies based on the particular location or type of use. But for every single land use there's more than is being used.

[69:10] Something we thought was really interesting this year is that we paired it with our analysis of the parking reductions, and we saw that even projects that were granted really significant parking reductions from the code. Minimum requirements were had more parking than they need at peak time. So an example is the diagonal crossing residential development. They had an almost 20% parking reduction. And they're still not using all of their parking. There's still 33% of parking that's going unused. And that's not even getting close to what the minimum code requirement would have been if they hadn't gotten that parking reduction. So those are really important takeaways that we're using to inform the project and our proposed scope with thinking through all this data collection and work we've done over the last 10 years. And also this State bill is we're proposing to explore, eliminating off street parking requirements for all uses. We're still doing work to determine what some feasible reductions would be if we were not to eliminate all parking requirements, minimum parking requirements. So based on our newest data, what would be kind of

[70:19] logical reduction? But really, we're going forward with eliminating off street parking requirements as the proposal for now or for our scope right now and then, also just applying the State Bill Citywide rather than applying it only to the that blue part of the map, the 81% in the transit service area kind of bifurcating the city with those with 2 completely separate rules would add significant complexity to the code. And because it's such a majority of the city that falls into the transit service area. we think that that logistically makes a lot more sense. So those are the 2 kind of main points related to off street parking. With that, I'm gonna pass it to Chris, who will talk through transportation, demand management.

[71:06] Sure. Thank you, Lisa. Good evening, Tab. Chris Haglin, principal planner transportation mobility here to talk to you about our transportation demand management plan, ordinance for new development. Next slide, please. There we go. So just as some additional background the city's transportation department started looking at a A Tdm plan ordinance for new development around the same time that the initial studies around eliminating parking minimums and going to maximums or just eliminating parking requirements altogether came into place and we presented. We were kind of going in 2 different tracks. One was a parking track, one was a Tdm. Track, and we went to council at a similar time, and Council said, Please bring these things together. Staff completely agreed that these 2 things need to come together. So, as we look at the Off street parking requirements for a new development.

[72:12] At the same time we could think about what would be the Tdm. Plan requirements and creating an ordinance that would actually give us the ability to monitor and enforce those requirements over time. And so we kind of thought of it. As you know, this kind of connection between the amount of parking goes down as we no longer have minimums, then we could naturally see Tdm plan requirements increase, because the main thing is, we want to make the parking work, the parking supply off for those properties work and not negatively impact the transportation system around it. We also really wanted to address the deficiencies we have in the existing Tdm plan process for new development. We don't really have any type of ordinance that sets specific targets

[73:07] of what development should do, how a Tdm plan should perform. What's the level of mitigation, whether it be in regard to vehicle trips or sov mode, share, and then a way to monitor it over time, and then to evaluate compliance. And then what to do? If a property is in compliance, and also what to do if a property is out of compliance. So so we have this desire to set up a Tdm plan ordinance to do all of those things. And so, way back in 2014, we did a best practices report. There weren't a lot of Tdm ordinances around for new developments, but we did find those that were in place. Many of them were very new, and so we did what we could in terms of best practices.

[74:00] one benefit of this project being delayed is that we have a lot more information to go on for the types of Tdm plan developments, ordinances that work and how they work and why they work, and we'll be previewing some best practices. Findings that we've had with our consultants. Alta, after my brief section next slide, please. So when we look at a Tdm planned ordinance for new development, there are some kind of basic integral components for how you design it. So for each of these different components the city will need to figure out, what do we want to do? And so, in terms of the purpose of the ordinance and the desired outcomes. What do we want it to achieve? We could have it achieve just mitigating impacts in the surrounding transportation system. Or we could go beyond that. In looking at how we can use this opportunity with development, to expand our multimodal infrastructure and also create policies that can help meet our transportation and citywide goals. We also have to figure out what triggers and thresholds.

[75:12] When does the ordinance come into play? When does it not? Does it apply to every development or just the largest. So those things need to be determined as well. Ultimately we will determine what actually are we measuring and what are we setting a target at so the 2 most common ones that we see are peak hour, vehicle trip, generation or Sov mode share 2 very similar but very different performance metrics. One can be monitored using tubes on the road or camera. Sov requires more of a survey. So you know, where? What path do we want to go down with that. we'll have to also determine what methodology are we going to use or formula we're going to use to determine where we set that target level. So like a trip budget level or an sov gold share mode chair goal, we'll have to have a formula based on the type of land use. It is the parking supply, maybe other characteristics like the multimodal level of service in the area and access.

[76:23] We'll also have to think about the Tdm plan requirements. There are many cases where a city could be agnostic to how a development gets to the goal, just that they get to the goal. Other cities can have a whole set of requirements, you know. In our case a good example would be requiring the ecopass or unbundled parking. You know, we could have some requirements, but the main thing is they have to get to the target level. Then we'll have to work with. Of course, our city attorney's office. So that's another department that will be involved in this. To really think about, how are we going to set up monitoring compliance and enforcement. This goes down to everything as who pays for the monitoring enforcement. Is this the responsibility of the developer to pay for this? Or is this something that the city does. So there's a lot of questions to be answered.

[77:17] and all of how we do this, all the different components that come into a Tdm plan. Ordinance for new development will also be, you know, considering what our funding and staffing needs will be for that next slide, please. But for the purpose of this kind of introductory meeting where we're really just kind of going over the scope. We wanted to focus on the 1st 2 components. So when you think about the desired outcomes of this ordinance? Oftentimes, I think about, you know, kind of use a heuristic device like a pendulum. We can look at how that pendulum can swing from one side to the other. You know, we could say, well, we want to be on this side of that pendulum pendulum swing where we really just want to mitigate the impacts of that development on the immediate transportation system. We're not concerned about the wider area around it. We can move that pendulum a little bit over and say, Well, not only do we want to mitigate impacts, but we want to expand multimodal infrastructure or expand mobility options as we work in that area. And with that developer we can even swing that pendulum even further, where

[78:27] how can we use the Tdm ordinance as a policy lever that changes or even pushes travel, behavior change to really meet our city goals and our transportation goals very attractive approach, where we have very aggressive goals in our city, and we want to use those policy levers to get that. But we also have to be aware of the unintended consequences. Or you know, the ever present double edged sword. For how regulations impact development, which then in term could impact our larger economic vitality. You know, oftentimes cities look at to the number of regulations that they have, and how that may affect the attraction of businesses or the retention of businesses in our community that provides the sales tax funding that we need to do all the other things that we want to do.

[79:21] It's something that there's some nuances on in there that we want to look at, but we're eager to see where Tab is looking about on where we want to swing that pendulum next slide, please. Another thing we wanna talk about with you tonight is just the triggers and thresholds using a different heuristic device. The dial. This is always one of my favorite ones, the policy dial. How far do you want to turn or crank that policy dial? They all have different implications. This is really about the triggers and the thresholds. We have all different types of development in our community, and we can think of the number of development projects that come in, and

[80:05] how many of those would this new ordinance apply to? Would it apply to every single development? Or do you kind of turn that dial a little bit, that maybe it applies to maybe your medium and large. And there's developments that are small. relatively little impact that maybe you don't want to focus so much attention on. But you could always just have a couple of requirements, but not really ongoing, monitoring, due to the relative small impact. You could also just change the turn, the dial even more, that you know, this is an ordinance that we really only want to focus on our largest developments. those developments that have significant impact, not only in the area but in the wider city, you know. Think of a Cu South type level development where, you know, we're really going to look at. We establish a trip budget. We're going to monitor. We're going to enforce those types of things. But there's a lot of different factors, you know when you're thinking about where you're where you want to turn that dial.

[81:07] and many different cities do have a tiered approach where there are some developments that are small enough. They don't have requirements. There's a medium level or sometimes multiple medium levels where the requirements may change. And then you have your large, very significant developments where you're going to put the most requirements, the most attention on. And we can look at a lot of different factors for determining where a development falls within that tiered approach. We could look at the size of the development in terms of square footage or number of development in terms of land use the location of it? What is the multimodal level of service, what is really the potential in that area? And what do we think is the estimated change in vehicle trip generation. The city of Boulder has very few new development. It's mostly redevelopment. So there's always going to be a baseline of trips that already exist.

[82:11] Well, what is this redevelopment going to do in terms of that delta between the current trip level and then anticipated trip levels and then related to this whole project. Our partnership with planning and development services is that off street parking supply, because ultimately a Tdm plan for a development needs to make sure that that parking supply that they're providing on their site works. It provides the adequate parking that's needed for that development. We don't have impacts into surrounding areas or neighborhoods. And so we want to make sure that as that parking supply decreases, we want to increase those requirements next slide, please.

[83:00] So our proposed scope for this project. We've been working on it for a while, but is essentially to use a best practice approach. We have that in the works right now, we'll have a little preview from our consultants at at Alta. We really want to focus on not just mitigating impacts. But how do we improve multimodal access and mobility and access. Most, I think, most importantly, to those Tdm programs that we know are really effective in changing travel behavior. Things like the business ecopass the residential ecopass, combining that with bike, share, micro mobility, access. All of those things. We want to increase access to those programs. Staff is looking at a tiered approach, where there would be some exemptions for projects of the smallest size, but that we would have a tiered approach, that as the development increases in size and impact, that those requirements would ratchet up along with

[84:07] changing on where that target level is where we would measure whether or not a building is in compliance or noncompliance. Next slide, please. So I do want to bring in Ula Hester, who is with Alta. She's going to give you a preview of our best practices. Ula was part of urban trans way back in 2014, when we originally did the best practices research. So now with Alta, but we're we're glad that they're on board to look at best practices for Tdm. Plan ordinances across the country and world. So, Ula, please take over. Thank you. My name Isla Hester, with Alta planning, as Chris just mentioned. we. I just wanted to give you a really really brief preview on the work that we've been doing on the best practices update. So we looked at obviously, the best practices that were put together 10 years ago, which is crazy, that it's been that long and took a look at that, and and reviewed the cities that we had reviewed at the time.

[85:18] figured out, you know, which ones are still relevant, you know, which ones we were able to to contact to get updates on their programs on. And then we also wanted to make sure that we looked at some of the newer programs that have since been implemented with the city and county of Denver, for example, the city of San Francisco and a few others. So we've we've worked with staff on criteria to select the cities and programs that we wanted to review. And we're currently in the process of doing that. Once we're finished, we will have compiled all these different changes to programs that we previously reviewed, as well as added the new programs into an updated best practices. Report next slide, please.

[86:04] So of the initial programs that we had reviewed a decade ago. We're keeping Alexandria, Virginia, Bloomington, Minnesota, Cambridge, Mass. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fairfax County, Virginia, and Santa Monica, California. And these are. It's great that we were able to look at them again, and you know, like and talk to folks there to see how things are going now, because these are programs that have been around for a while. So we're getting some really good information on how the programs are currently doing. You know what the results are. In addition, we added Denver, Colorado, San Francisco, California, and Madison, Wisconsin. And while some of those programs don't have great results to share. Yet they took some innovative approaches on, you know, different elements of their program. Next slide, please. So really quick. And these are just some teasers, because, as as I said, we're not quite finished with the research yet. But a few sort of initial findings that we've seen well, 1st of all, the planning process for developers going through. The Tdm plan requirements, are fairly consistent across all the different programs that we've looked at old and new. So not a whole lot has changed there, which is, which is kind of comforting.

[87:25] one of the other things we've noticed that. And this is not a bad thing. The plan development timelines are growing, and that means that the cities and counties are working more earlier on closer with the developers doing the process to make sure that the Tdm requirements align with parking requirements, you know, with physical infrastructure requirements that are being proposed for developments. So that's definitely a change that we're seeing in the programs. We've heard about some creative funding alternatives to fund the the administrative cost to the city or county, for example, not just development filing fees related to Tdm. But also recertification fees where, you know, if there's a monitoring requirement every year, every 2 years. There is a fee attached to that.

[88:16] So that's that's 1 of the the interesting key findings that we're seeing delays on monitoring refers to not having that much information from the newer programs. But we do have some really good information from the older programs. And we'll we'll add those to the report. The plan management, or the management of plan monitoring. We're seeing that live in different places, depending on on the different cities. So in some cities it lives with the zoning administrator. In some cities it lives with with current planning, and some of a separate department altogether to to handle the Tdm. Monitoring and Enforcement integration of affordable housing was an interesting element we wanted to look at, and it varies by program, you know, some exempt affordable housing altogether. Others award points for inclusion of affordable housing at a development.

[89:15] what else do we have here? Enforcement flexibility. So a lot of the programs are fairly lenient when it comes to initial enforcement of the Tdm ordinance, but then become progressively aggressive. If the developer or the property does not comply down the line. The different programs show really strong alignment with like policy goals that the city has said, whether that be for Vmt reductions or more general and environmental goals. So that's that's something that is also really important to keep in mind. And then, finally, this is an interesting nugget that programs apparently still

[90:00] are a little challenged by, and that is the developer property manager communication. Once the plan has been approved and goes into implementation and monitoring, because, you know, as we all know, properties get sold. Tenants change. So you know, between different changes, being able to keep up a good, constant communication is important, but it can also be a challenge. So we're looking at various options that these programs are tackling that and I think that gets us to the end of my presentation. Thank you, Ula. We can now pass it on to Sam with the on-street parking management strategies. Thanks, Chris. For any tab members who don't know me. I'm Sam Bromberg. I'm a project manager with community vitality. and I'm here to talk about the on-street parking side of the project next slide, please.

[91:02] I wanted to provide a little background on the history of on-street parking management in boulder specifically in residential neighborhoods. So it began in 1986, we developed a residential permit parking or Rpp program that was adopted by council. It was designed to release spillover parking from commercial districts into residential areas, and there was originally preference for residential and business use of the curbside space over all other users. In 1997 the program was redesigned into the neighborhood permit parking or Npp program that we know today. It was redesigned to improve the balance between neighborhood use and public access to those areas. Between 1997 and 2018, we've added 12 Npp zones and one seasonal zone. All of those zones currently have time restrictions for vehicles without a parking permit meaning.

[92:05] if you do not have a parking permit for that zone, you can park for up to 2 or 3 h once per day, and we do offer a limited number of non-residential permits. So commuter permits for folks who work nearby, and a number of other similar permit types for non residential use in those zones depending on availability. Between 2019 and 2021 community vitality conducted the revitalizing access in Boulder Project to address some of the original Amps initiatives that Lisa spoke about quite early on in the presentation from 2017 the results were a data-driven parking management for residential and commercial districts. Today the Npp exists as a tool of the umbrella program which we call the residential access management. Program. The Npp. Is still restricted to lower density neighborhoods. Its current design only works in those lower density neighborhoods where residents don't outnumber the number of available curbside spaces where vehicles could be parked.

[93:16] Because we have very few restrictions on the allocation of those residential permits. And additionally current state. We do require a resident petition for us to complete a study and propose an Mpp. Which would then go to Tab and council for their approval. Some of you might recall. We were at Tab a few short years ago for the East Aurora proposal. Actually, that might have been last year. We currently also have the curbside management program to evaluate curbside use directly adjacent to new development and in commercial districts. But we don't have a mechanism to proactively examine neighborhoods surrounding new developments and determine if changes to on street uses should be implemented to mitigate any potential impacts of the development

[94:11] next slide, please. So our proposed scope is to update the existing Npp program so that it can be applied in any neighborhood to create new tools under ramp to help facilitate higher intensity development by managing on street demands just paid, or time of street parking. and to explore the possibility of proactive residential on street parking study, triggered by new higher intensity, development which could result in a ramp proposal so meaning a new development is coming in, we would proactively go out and complete a study and potentially end up in proposal as opposed to the reactive way that we respond to petitions. Currently. next slide, please.

[95:02] Just wanted to highlight some of the goals for this particular project. which is equitable access to ramp tools which include the Mpp. Regardless of housing density. So the ability to apply the Npp. In a variety of residential neighborhoods, of varying density, experiencing spillover from nearby traffic generators. accommodation for all curbside users and residential areas without prioritizing access for one user over another. If we do manage the right of way, we need to manage it for all users based on supply and demand, and who needs access throughout the day. increased accessibility and reduced congestion and residential neighborhoods surrounding new development to support the Tdm ordinance by managing, parking, surrounding the new development, encouraging those in the new development to take advantage of the Tdm benefits that they may receive from being there and support the Tmp objectives by considering Tdm

[96:05] Tdm. Benefits or ramp neighborhoods next slide. We also have been working on some best practices with a consultant who's not able to attend tonight, but I wanted to provide sort of a sneak peek as well, a sample of some of those for residential parking management that have been identified, that we can consider for our work. One is to limit parking permits to one per license driver. Currently, we allow for 2 to only allow for the application of permit parking for areas impacted by commercial parking demand schools and recreational facilities meaning we would not allow for an Npp in an area that wasn't impacted from spillover parking and for additional context. All of our current Mpps are in existing spillover areas, close to schools or commercial parking demand

[97:09] limit. The number of guest or visitor permits. that we will issue in high demand areas. So currently, we offer both visitor and guest permits to residential properties and Npps which has the potential to be abused, and we know it is abused. Occasionally we could look at how to combine those options into one that would potentially be more difficult to abuse and again limit the number of permits that we're issuing in some of these areas. we could implement an escalating permit rate to reduce the purchase of unnecessary permits that one's a little bit more controversial, due to the number of long term rentals in the city shared by multiple adults who may have vehicles requiring permits, but we could consider how to incorporate some ideas from that regulate mixed use areas by requiring a certain percentage of the addresses on the block to be residential. So this is how we would apply the Npp. If we were going to consider applying it. Make sure that there is high residential use in the area

[98:16] and then also require more than half of eligible households to actually purchase a parking permit in an Npp. To remain in Npp or be given an Npp. This is another potential avenue for discontinuing existing zones that really aren't performing. That's something that Tab has expressed interest in doing in past meetings. So those are just a couple of ideas. There's more to come. It's very early stages for us. But I wanted to share those next slide. and I'm turning it back to Lisa. All right. Thank you. This is the so just our summary slide. Thanks for going through. It's obviously 3 very complex topics that are interwoven. But again, here's the summary of our scope recommendations. I won't go through those again. But we do have these questions where we framed the discussion, but happy to answer any other questions you might have, and look forward to this discussion.

[99:24] Thank you. I will open it up to tab questions 1st and then for tab feedback. But I just wanted, as as a procedural matter to note this was in a very, very long presentation. In my opinion it would have been best broken out if you were doing the 3 presentations separately to sort of treat them as 3 mini presentations, because it's pretty hard for us to keep top of mind different questions, concerns and clarifying bits that in mind. I know that Chris spoke about how the Off street parking standards and the Tdm.

[100:10] That that council requested they be brought together. I have not really heard in the presentation how the On-street parking management strategies was informed by either the work on the other areas or how it changed in particular, with respect to the feedback that you got from planning board and so I don't need an answer right now. But just something to think about in particular is. how does the potential for parking changes citywide removing parking minimums. informed thinking about tools like the Npp.

[101:04] If you have an answer ready. That's great. But I I haven't really heard a whole lot in this presentation about how all of these considerations are are informing one another which is so it's difficult for me to to weigh. Why, why, we're talking about all 3 at once. Sure I I can attempt a brief answer at that, and and thank you for the feedback on the presentations. Next time we do this, we will break it up and have you ask questions in between the 3 sections. So we will make note of that to me. The real nexus between. All of this is, you know, you're going to have changes in the parking supply. We want to have this Tdm ordinance that ensures that that supply of parking works, and that we're expanding our multiple options. But then, you know, I've been involved in Tdm plans and looking at new developments for many years in the city. One thing we always think about is.

[102:08] how does that new development not only impact just, you know, its property in the immediate surrounding area. but how does it also affect areas around the city residential areas, other commercial areas? And wouldn't it be nice if the city had a toolbox of tools that it could use when looking at a development to say, Okay, we've got a change in development. Are there changes that the city should be thinking about or analyzing to public right of way on street public right of way. I think curbside management is a perfect idea of this. New development may have some impacts, it may be changing uses. And so can the city have a toolbox of tools to proactively say, Okay, based on this change in development, we need to think about

[103:05] how we're going to change public right away to further ensure that that development doesn't have impacts on the surrounding system. I think a good example is when we have student housing, and we want to look at that curbside management on adjacent roadways, to have the tools for the city to say, well, the developer can't make those changes themselves. It's public right away. But the city can have a set of tools to look at how we adapt that public right away to make sure that it works with this new type of land use. The same thing is, we see, a lot of opposition to new development because of the perceived impact of the surrounding neighborhoods. So what if we had proactive tools at our disposal to say, Okay. if we have unbundled parking, and we're making residents pay to parking. A lot of them may try and get around that and park in neighborhoods. How can we have proactive tools at our disposal to prevent that, and thus also help the development minimize its impact on the surrounding area. So hopefully, that gives you a little context of what we're thinking about in terms of having a proactive tool set that we can analyze

[104:20] should changes be made to public right away, whether it be parking or curbside management uses to to make sure that development doesn't negatively impact adjacent properties. Okay, I think that it's part of the way to answering my question. Chris. Thank you. I think if I could just put a finer point on it, and then I'll come to Trini because I see your hand is up just to noodle and then get back to me hopefully later. This meeting. But what? How? How? What is the interplay between continuing our neighborhood parking permit program or neighborhood access whatever it is.

[105:00] and changing the parking minimums in residential neighborhoods. That's that's that's pretty retroactive. And a lot of what you're talking about is proactive like when new development comes in. So what thinking has there been, or what conclusions, if any, have we drawn about how these 2? How how the change in parking minimums might affect our thinking about Npp Trini. Go ahead, please. Okay. So I took a screenshot because this is completely out of context and out of the box. But it goes back to what we were talking about earlier. And when you guys were talking about on street project goals, right and creating equitable access to ramps and all of the accommodation for curbside users. Could we include like snow removal as part of this? I mean, could that be a part of the bucket? You know? Of things that we could include as a necessity. I am not sure about that, that. I think that's something that Staff will have to huddle on to think about. But it's an intriguing idea.

[106:05] You see, I mean, like, if we start thinking really outside the box and understanding how all these needs cannot be met without, like the very basic need. You know it, it all kind of like intertwined. So anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there. Other questions. Tab. Sure Go ahead! Well, I just feedback thanks for all the history. And it's interesting that you guys have been working on the parking minimums for about 10 years, and city Council hasn't always been ready for that. But and then Covid happened. So I'm so glad this is happening now. There's so many reasons why. That's a good idea, and I'm sure that people on this call are familiar with this book. The the high cost of free parking by Donald shoot from

[107:05] 2,005 that released. sparked this whole movement. I do. Wanna add And and this might fall into the traffic demand management that while we have minimums for bicycle parking for a new development. we need to start thinking about existing developments because there are so many that where it's very. I mean, there's strip malls where there's there's 0 bike racks in boulder and many that are inadequate for cargo bikes or or really any bikes and I I guess I I don't know. I know a Councilman council member Shoehart is interested in working on that is that is that something that would require city council to to take action on, or can staff initiate something.

[108:09] Yeah, that's definitely going to be a part of this project, because for the off street parking side, we'll be looking at the specific section of our land use code. That also includes bike parking requirements. So we'll be making changes to those. We also have some of the design requirements for bike parking is in our design and construction standards, and that's why you'll see those bike racks that you were saying that are like relatively usable is because we used to allow different styles up until 2014. And so we will be analyzing that as part of this project, and it's a comment that we've heard many times. So we've heard that that's an important factor of this and so yeah, that'll definitely be integrated. Thanks. So just following up that

[109:01] that doesn't necessarily require City Council action. Oh, sorry, yes, it would require city Council action so to update any part of our code or the design and construction standards, it still needs to be adopted by Council. Okay? One idea. in addition to to commercial spaces, is having some city provided. Bike racks on streets may be taking up a parking space on on street parking space for bikes. Every X number of blocks or so. That's a great idea. Right, and I'll just, you know Chris covered this earlier, Mike. But you know our curbside management implementation guidebook. Which is now in practice. A resource for city staff across departments, to use. you know, offers some some guidance on the siting frequency and the guidance on how to implement those proactively in addition to to reactive approaches. So that is already something that we have in our toolbox.

[110:18] Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure if it's my connection, or just the zoom. But I'm things are fading in and out, so if I'm a little slow. I apologize, Darcy. I see your hand up. Yeah, thanks just a little bit further to Mike's comments, which I was thinking about as well with the kind of retrofitting. And you know, when we enact a Tdm ordinance for new development that has to be, it has to make it possible for the people who are using those tools to go elsewhere in the city right and to to get around and to use their their bikes everywhere, right if and to take transit wherever they need to go, and to have

[111:08] preferential parking for car share or carpooling and things like that. And so so I'm just curious about how you're all I mean, I I appreciate seeing this kind of tri departmental effort. And that's really important. And I'm really glad that everyone's talking to each other and working collaboratively, collaboratively on this. And I'm just curious about how you're thinking of that, Chris. Specifically, you know, about just broadening those Tdm requirements. I mean, of course, we have a lot of that with eco passes and things in the city. But but how do we ensure that the ordinance. Really, makes it possible for people to travel actively and use all those tools all around the city. Yeah. Well, I I would say that you know. One thing to recognize is, you know, the scope of this particular ordinance is

[112:06] Tdm ordinance on new developments. So developments or redevelopments that are going through the the process of you know, they're changing their land land use. It's a redevelopment. And so it's really looking at that particular set of properties that are going through that process. and we certainly hope through this process that residents or employees that work for employers that are tenants at these new properties, either new properties or redeveloped properties will have increased access to those very successful Tdm programs that we have now much earlier in my career at the city I did propose, and this was long ago a Tdm. Ordinance that would be an ordinance that would be imposed on all existing developments

[113:02] at the time. City Council was not in favor of doing an ordinance that would apply to existing properties, not going through redevelopment. So, but that is certainly another effort that you know could gain momentum and staff could be directed to say, Yeah, let's look at an ordinance that applies not only to new development but to existing development as well. That would require existing properties to put in place Tdm programs that could be accessed by their residents or their employees. It's kind of it's a different different. That would be a much different ordinance and a different scope, one that would go on existing developments rather than ones that are going through a development review process. But we certainly could do it.

[114:01] Well, but even without that kind of far reaching ordinance that would cover the rest of the city. How do you think an ordinance on new developments will allow people to or I don't know what other efforts are are possible without adopting kind of a citywide ordinance. Whatever other efforts are possible to make sure that people who are subject to the new development ordinance are then able to access all those things elsewhere. Yeah, I mean, the city will continue to make investments in all of our multimodal infrastructure, and by requiring developers to provide infrastructure and amenities. Through this process we're continually expanding and approving our system as well. When properties go through redevelopment, we offer require them to bring everything up to code. All the different types of infrastructure, whether that be bicycle, access, pedestrian facilities, those all come up to code, and oftentimes we have developers build new facilities as part of theirs, which then not only helps the residents or the employee tenants of those properties, but also the wider community. So it's a small incremental change over time. But I think it's 1 that we have been making for years in boulder

[115:20] with requirements that developers provide this type of multimodal infrastructure and the type of programs you know, you think about over the years, all the different properties that we have required to purchase eco passes. Typically, you know, we have this 3 year requirement. But earlier, we did studies where you know, 90% of properties continue participation in the Eco pass, because once people have it. They want it. They want to continue it. Every single one of our residential properties that were required through the development review process to enter the neighborhood ecopass program are still in the neighborhood ecopass program. So it continues that incremental growth of access to those programs. And I think just the awareness of the programs also helps. You know, the the ecopass is ubiquitous now, and it's in part because of these types of requirements. Now, we can

[116:22] create a situation where a property has to remain in compliance. And so those programs, those access to those programs continue in perpetuity because that property always has to be meeting that target level of whether it's vehicle, trip, generation or mode share. So it is really, we're creating a situation. Thanks, Chris. I'm gonna I'm gonna cut you off there. You've stated it really, really well, and we're a little behind. But I want I just want to like turn tabs attention back to sort of the asks for this evening, which is sort of a commentary on the scope

[117:00] recommendations. So if we could pull that slide back up. or I'm also looking at the memo I'm looking at there. It's on page like 15 and 16. But since we're talking right now, Chris and Darcy, about Tdm requirements. The the scope proposal at the moment is looking for tab feedback. Oh, sorry. I'm gonna stay off camera, because my connection is a little bit better off camera. Design, a new Tdm ordinance for new developments for new developments as part of this project. Also establish requirements. Basically give it some teeth. So some some enforceability. If if that's a a fair way to summarize bullet point 2 and then the 3rd scope proposal on the Tdm stuff is to use a tiered approach to to sort of exempt the smallest requirements while increasing requirements for medium to larger developments. Can I just get some tab feedback at the moment, if you have any, on those proposals of scope for Staff's work on the Tdm. Requirements.

[118:14] Darcy, I'm really kind of interested in hearing about you, because this is kind of your this, this your jam man. Yeah, yeah, this is kind of my world. Yeah. I mean, I think that the research in the in the memo in the you know, kind of draft is is, you know, I think really solid. And so I think that certainly they've, you know, achieved that kind of best practice scope and looking at at comparable areas, it's interesting to see which communities have no minimums but certain maximums. So that's interesting. But then, yeah, I think I think that this is a good. It's a really good start. Is there anything that you would want to change or tweak or

[119:02] expand upon given sort of what we're looking at here on this slide? From my current perspective. I don't think so. I think that this is a pretty thorough job. The tiered approach is interesting. I think I I need to. yeah, I I think this is, this is pretty solid. Yeah, it's any. It's an evaluated, tiered approach. So you know, for for in terms of thinking about it fresh, I think I agree, it's kind of a good place to start. Start, yeah. And in terms of a Tdm ordinance. I think that this was this was a question sort of embedded in in the presentation, and in the memo. In in your opinion, Darcy and anyone else from Tab would like you to weigh in as well. Should the Tdm. Ordinance like, what should the what the should the thrust of it be? Should it be about limiting the impact of, you know new development? Or should it actually be a driver toward changing transportation patterns and habits

[120:00] of the existing populace. Is that. Well, that's what I was asking about. I mean that because to me I mean they have to it. It has to do that ultimately. that's why I was asking those those questions of Chris. Because, yes, okay, we can apply this. You know, it's a lot easier to pass an application on new development, and, as Chris mentioned, that, can, those new developments are then exemplars, and then any any properties that come under any kind of redevelopment, and then have to meet, you know. Come up to code, are then subject to the new requirements. And so I mean, I understand that approach. and I think it's probably the easiest thing to get to to move forward on right, because, as Chris mentioned, you know, trying to get it to apply to the whole city, and to make, you know, create the same standards everywhere, is, is really challenging, and Council may not, may or may not be open to that

[121:00] applying it to new developments. Kind of. I understand why that would be the approach here. Yeah. Cause if you come, you know fresh, then you don't. You haven't already made an investment and have expectations. That being said. a lot of these Tdm requirements are requirements imposed upon the 1st developer, and then they sell it. And then that requirement falls away. And so it's not like we're I. I don't feel like it's a bait and switch. I feel like it is just extending the applicability of that expectation. and so to to my mind, for whatever whatever this worth I, I would definitely expand it and not just apply it to new development and not and and yeah, and do it with a mind toward this is this should be the new, normal. Well, I hope I hope that that's the case, and I would love to see it to be a broad app broadly applied thing, because. as you just mentioned, like, you know, take 29th Street for an example, you know. Yes, it's in there. There are requirements to have for all the leaseholders in that property to have eco passes right, but that was something that was kind of in the original expectation there and then the the property, you know, the

[122:15] kind of. As the property changes hands and stuff, it becomes kind of lost. And so how do you keep those Tdm requirements really fresh and really meaningful to every occupant of that property. How do you keep it, you know. So yeah, I don't. I'm not exactly sure how we would word that. But but that's really a challenge in this arena is, how do you keep these Tdm requirements fresh and meaningful and top of mind, for everyone who occupies that development. Well, I think I think it makes it an expectation and not just a suggestion, and we hope that it sticks. You know. I mean just just as a parent I would. I would like my child to, you know, enjoy a clean mouth with proper tooth brushing. But, you know, if he doesn't discover the joy. I'm not gonna drop that requirement. I'm like, I'm you still gotta brush your teeth, dude.

[123:06] Yeah. So yeah, this is an eat your veggies and brush your teeth. Kind of ordinance, and I would I would encourage. Yeah, yeah, I mean ultimately, for to make this really to make boulder really an exemplar. And to meet these, you know, these high standards we are gonna have to to do that, to have it much more broadly applied and much more broadly recognized and sort of yeah, like, I said, top of mind, for all the iterations of a development great. Mike, I see you're unmuted. Do you want to weigh in here, or are you just happy. Yeah, I just think it's it. It is important to expand to, you know, from new developments to existing developments. And we have to bear in mind. There are political consequences with push back and so on. One concept is to make things targeted towards larger businesses and certain types of businesses

[124:03] as appropriate. Yeah, I think that's a smart move. But I, yeah, I would not have an objection to making this retroactive, and not merely applied to new developments. you know, to give existing properties sort of a sudden sunrise period to come into compliance. But but to sort of reaffirm the the expectations that were there. When when the property 1st developed, even if it was under another person's ownership, another another entity's ownership. Yeah, I would fully support that if we can. If we can do that. I think I I would, too. I think that's really smart a really like fair and smart way to do it. Okay. Okay, let's move over. And I'm assuming that's that's enough feedback from tab on this one. How about off street parking standards? I find this one pretty interesting, because the staff recommendation is to apply the state level changes citywide. And so I'm curious about why we are exploring, eliminating off street parking requirements for that remaining 90, 19%.

[125:12] Why, this feels to me like when the city wanted to. Just, you know. work toward vision 0, like, why can't we just do it? And say, this is our goal. So, Chris, can you or somebody? Can you tell me why we're why that? Why, the scope proposed is to explore eliminating it when we know we're going to have to do it middle of next year. Yeah. So just to clarify the State bill only applies to multifamily residential uses. So it's. No, I understand. Yeah. But it's 81% of the city. Yeah, but it only applies to one use. So it's about all these uses. And then also, we also want. We haven't done public engagement on this, because the project was never intended to be you know, in 2014, or 2017, the direction that we were given on this project was never to eliminate off street parking requirements. That's something that's become a lot more. As I mentioned in my too long presentation is it's become a

[126:11] a lot more significant conversation with planning and zoning circles in the last 5 years or so. And so that's kind of new, and we haven't done public engagement on that question. And so we need to go out to the public. We've definitely gotten direction from boards that. And we've heard lots of great public comment that is in support of that. But we need to have that broader conversation. A lot of other communities that have done this do have more direct, like comprehensive plan guidance that says eliminate the parking requirements, and they kind of go forward without needing to. Do. You know, like super robust engagement because it was part of that larger community conversation. Because we've gotten this direction and we have the State Bill kind of guiding that one part of it. That's where we want. This is a new topic that we want to bring up with the public. So that's why we're kind of exploring the elimination. We don't know what the outcome of that public engagement is going to be. So we do. That's why we're also studying with our consultants. Well, what would the numbers be if we didn't fully eliminate those parking requirements? But we were able to better match

[127:21] the utilization numbers with with with our parking requirements in the code. Okay. To clarify. Your presentation wasn't over long. It was actually quite interesting. It was good. Had just had the necessary. Level of detail. It was just like stacking 3 very, very sort of intensive, and, you know. rich presentations at once on these things was a bit much to expect us to respond to at once. Second. It's what we touched. To be fair. The State, didn't you know? Do it outreach in the city of Boulder, either. And

[128:03] the Legislature, the State legislature said, okay, this is like a really important lever that we can pull to change development patterns and usage patterns that are going to help further our climate goals. And so I guess my my question here is, why are we at exploring? Why are we basically in in the hierarchy of of public outreach? Why are we at a consult level and not at an inform level? And this is a question I raise all the time with transportation projects. Sure. So the reason is because the State Bill only applies to multifamily residential, and that's only one part. and we have. It's so. It's a little mind boggling, then that 81% of the city falls under that. That's 81% of the geographic area. Geographic area. That's right. Yeah, it's not 81%. Households. Yeah. So it's a. It's a broader question than what the the state bill mandates. And so that's why we're exploring it. It's also, if, like, the history of the project is that we've brought things forward and been rationed back. So we're just being realistic with what might happen.

[129:18] Of course. Well, we you're you're here at Tab, and of course Tab explicitly in its letter to Council in December, said, Please remove parking minimum. So you know, we're we're gonna just reiterate that. But we've been behind this idea for a while. So if that's the feedback that needs to come to council. That's the feedback that needs to come to council. But we're already on on board this ship. Other feedback, Valerie, you're unmuted, do we do you want to weigh in here. Yeah, thanks for the opportunity. Just you know, I I don't need to remind Tab that that we're really here tonight to get feedback on the the scope of what city staff will be looking at right? And so when we use words like explore you know, that's not necessarily just relating to the community engagement. Approach for for the effort. It's really about the scope of work with

[130:20] all of the investigations that Staff will be doing consultants in the wings as well, and you know I want to reiterate that there are things that just are not going to be in scope for this. So, as we talked about previously with the Tdm. That would include applying Tdm requirements on existing developments. you know, whatever magnitude that just will not be in the scope of work for this effort. This effort is focused on new developments for tanium requirements. And so I just want to underscore what what Lisa was was articulating here. You know.

[131:00] because this the State law did specify a specific use, we still need to understand how broadening those minimums with the elimination of minimums to other uses what that would mean. And so that I just want to to underscore how important that is for the discussion tonight and and how we can get focused feedback from our tab members. That's that's really where I think we could have a productive conversation here as we wrap up this item. Thank you. Okay. I I really appreciate that. That was very clear. to push back a little bit on that. I think it is not outside of tabs purview to say yes, and please do more. So. I think you're you're you're definitely not hearing oh, don't! Oh, please don't do this from Tab. But you you might be hearing, you know. Please move a little faster. So I think I think it was Lisa who said, like, I can't believe how long ago you know, this stuff happened was 2014, and

[132:11] this has been going on so long. Like it's I've been here 8 years almost and so efforts that predate me are not not not so frequent. And this is definitely one of them. And if you're hearing some frustration from me and maybe from other members. It's because we feel like these. These are moving a little too slowly to adequately counter sort of the urgency of I think climate crisis is top of mind for all of us. And I think you know for me, traffic violence is top of mind. So just sort of reducing a whole lot of the harms and ills that our current transportation system and the current direction of our transportation system is poised to inflict on

[133:06] today's citizens tomorrow's citizens and the citizens who, you know, it's past their bedtime, like, I'm I'm keeping an eye on that. Not that you're not but but as a purely advisory board tab has always, in my experience been saying, Please do more. Please do it faster. Please be bold. and that's I hope, what you're hearing. Yeah, that's very helpful for Staff to hear tonight. In terms of of just you know, getting your feedback on the scope that that they'll be embarking on. And I'll just remind us that we, you know, this is really staff initiated work. Even before this became part of the latest council conversation. Absolutely. Yes. We have been moving on this work diligently. 2014 on some of it absolutely.

[134:03] Recently before the Council conversation in early 2024. So you know, really starting to ramp up on this and talking about it internally staff initiated, especially in response to, you know, the legislation that was moving through and that ultimately passed. And so I want to just lift up that staff was thinking ahead to how we can prepare for that, and a reaction to that. And this is a continuation of of work staff have really been doing internally. And and, Tila, I do really appreciate tabs feedback on these items because it helps us continue to to move swiftly through our process. So thank you for that. Great. Thank you, Darcy. Hand up. Yeah, I just wanna say in terms of scope for the off street parking standards. I I do. I love this. And I think that the proposal here is really strong and clearly, you know the the clarity about how over parked we are and how much capacity, you know we have that exceeds the demand is is really really important. I think that

[135:10] planning and development services has done an excellent job in this regard, and you know clearly the intent is to apply these changes brought down by the State more broadly than they are required to be so. I think we should support this. Thank you. Okay, that being said. Since you said the word ramp up, let's go to ramp on street management parking strategies. I'm not gonna go 1st because I've been grumpy about this for many years. But I am curious. If an answer to my question that I posed earlier. Is available. Just sort of what is if there is thinking about how changing parking minimums might impact our thinking about the necessity, availability and and and

[136:07] how how a neighborhood parking permit program would work. And I still keep falling back on Npp, because that's what I'm used to. But also in the memo. It just says Ramp, you know, has new tools, but it doesn't describe what those tools are. So I'm sort of falling back on the perception that we're basically still, just with the Mpp. Right part of the effort of this project is to develop those new tools. So I I they are not in the memo because they're in the process of being developed through this process and understanding what other communities are doing in response to elimination of off street parking minimums, and how we could apply those here in boulder. And what could work in our community and what might not work in our community in terms of how this supports? You know, we're looking at the system holistically. And we want to make sure that if if we eliminate off street parking minimums that it doesn't impact the system as a whole, and we don't see an increase of people trying to get around, maybe not having as readily available parking at their development by parking in other neighborhoods, and that helps

[137:19] the whole transportation system, because if we encourage the tools that we already offer, like those that we might be offering through the Tdm ordinance. we will encourage more people taking those options. And one of the other things that we're looking at in the on street parking management strategies is also, you know, how could we also include Tdm benefits in the Npp program, or as a ramp tool, for example? So that the surrounding neighborhood surrounding a new development that doesn't. I'm so sorry. Okay. Jasper. Good voice. Oh, sorry! I thought I muted myself. My dog.

[138:02] my dog! He's very upset. so that people could. People in those neighborhoods could also take advantage of some Tdm benefits, and they're not just for those folks who are living in that brand new development that have those Tdm benefits as part of that Tdm ordinance. I hope that helps. Do you? Do you view the Npp as a Tedm strategy? No. I was speaking specifically about Tdm benefits as like a as. For businesses. So like. If you are living in Npp, what other benefits could we offer you? Could we like and offer you an Eco pass? What would that cost like? How could we cover that cost? So we're going to be looking at that in this project, as well as you know the the cost recovery that I know that we've talked about it tab multiple times. But then, also, how could we? How could we maybe offer those additional benefits that again. Help the entire system. Perform a little bit better.

[139:05] Okay, Darcy, I see your hand up, but just let me let me hang out here with Samantha for a minute. earlier in your in your comment just now, Samantha, you were talking about Mpp as like looking to the neighborhoods and making sure that the impacts of blah blah. I mean, I'll have to go back and listen. But It feels to me, and I think this is the the root of my opposition to this program, but it feels to me that the Npp. Or the Ramp is a way of codifying a privilege for people who live in highly desirable neighborhoods or neighborhoods that are near some really cool stuff that everybody wants to access

[140:01] it gives them a boost or some preferential treatment. And I think this is what's behind planning boards. Caution about allowing the Npp to basically offer a subsidy to neighborhood residents without really recognizing the the value of that subsidy. And so when I hear things like, and and it's in the the current memo, like it was designed to preserve neighborhood character, I believe, was is the phrase that is, a red flag for me. Understanding now sort of our racist development history, our practice of preferentially allowing development and investment by desirable people and groups and desirable neighborhoods, and keeping the undesirables out. And to me the Npp. Is really really part of that I've also haven't seen in the memo much discussion of the equity concerns.

[141:19] and how the Npp. Holds up under the lens. That we, as a city, have developed about racial and economic equity. And that's I'm not raising this for the 1st time. This has come up before. And so I've been surprised that that wasn't really addressed in the current memo. I realize I just threw a whole lot of spaghetti at the wall there. But. If you have responses to any of that. That would be lovely, and I'm not going to hold you to responding to all of it, because I recognize I kind of just did a shotgun at you.

[142:02] Yeah, no, that's I appreciate your feedback. And it is heard. I think you know, one of our goals with this project is we want to make sure if we're sort of reimagining, the existing Mpp program is we want to be able to accommodate for all users, and that does include residents, but that includes other users, too. And you know what I think about when I think about, you know, residential access and neighborhoods is, I think about. You know the little grandma who needs to get her groceries from her car to her house, and you know, if she's in a neighborhood where there are cars everywhere, and she can't find parking on her block at all. That's going to be really challenging for her. And so I think about her. When I think about those equity issues for sure. But then, you know. we and we do fill out the racial equity tool every time we approach this new project, and we have for this one as well. And so it is top of mind.

[143:06] But I absolutely hear you, and I think you know, one of our goals, and why I put it on the goals pages. We want to make sure that we have that balance of of access for all different types of users and not just residents. Because in the past this program was more focused on residents. Which is why I brought it up. That is the history, and we can't ignore that. But how can we? How can we look to the future and improve upon what exists already, and make sure that we can still support for everybody who does need access to that, because not everyone is able to to, you know. Take to use something else that's not a personal vehicle for for their day to day life. Sure. Yeah. So I'm again, I'm just a little concerned with, like the the scope being minor updates to the existing Mpp, because I I personally have a sense that Mpp is kind of rotten at the core.

[144:03] I don't take issue with the idea that parking management in areas where there is higher congestion and higher parking demand. Would be appropriate. I just think that the focus on residents and residential uses is inappropriate and maybe misguided. And as someone who. you know, let's talk about the little lady with the groceries. Unless she's in a high intensity area, she's probably all beholden to the existing code requirements for off street parking. And that's kind of partly why I was asking the question like, How does the change for parking minimums affect our thinking about the Mpp. And I'm still really not hearing a very good answer about how those are interacting with each other. Secondly, as someone you know who like a lot of neighborhood schools. That's a high in generator trip generator but it seems

[145:07] to be ignoring the nature of those trips to say you can only park there once a day, because many families who will come to a school are dealing with a 7 h school day, and they drop off their 3 kids at the school in the morning, and then have to pick them up at a non peak hour a second time of day, but they are frequently risking a ticket for misbehaving in an Npp. That is not actually adequately thinking about how people use that. And I would say that a touch twice a day for 20 min on the curb should not count the same as a 1 time. Parker, who's there for 2 h and 45 min. And so there's a lot of inflexibility in the current. Mpp, that I think these minor updates that we're talking about are not addressing

[146:02] Darcy. You had your hand up a long time ago, and then I took your turn. Sorry. No, that's that's okay. I I support what you were saying. I just wanted to encourage. You know, Samantha mentioned Tdm, tools as part of this program. And you know, B cycle memberships, lime memberships. Those are great Tdm tools for neighborhoods. Right? If you can get a B cycle station close enough to where people need to to be. And you know lime is more flexible in that in that regard. But but I would just encourage, you know, adding those to the program. Thanks, Darcy. Any further feedback. For staff on these scope recommendations, Mike. No, you're good. Okay. alright, thank you. We're a little behind schedule. And so I'm just gonna call it there. I know the staff will be happy if something, you know you get a 3 Am. Thought.

[147:05] feel free to jot it down and send it to the team. But I appreciate you being here. Darcy wants to wait. Can I just say one more thing? Because I is this, I think this is our opportunity to kind of influence this before the ordinance is drafted right? So I would just encourage the in the in the T. Chris's Tdm. Section to make sure that there's language that says that the leaseholders that the the people beyond the developer have to enforce the So it's in perpetuity, and not. Exactly. That is, that is the design of the ordinances that the requirements that we put on would be in perpetuity, no matter how many times it changes hands. The property itself is required to meet the Tdm ordinance.

[148:04] Yeah, excellent. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to ensure that. Thank you. Yep. Terrific. Thank you. Guys. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Garrett's all ready with the staff presentation on the telecom. Narrow, trenching standard. Yeah, thanks and just real quickly. It's another in the theme of collaboration. Another great effort. That's that's really cross departmental with our innovation and technology as well as planning and development services, colleagues handing it over to Garrett. Thanks. Good evening, Garrett Slater. I am the capital projects manager for the Transportation and Mobility department, and I am joined this evening by Mark Garcia, a a senior civil engineering manager, with planning and development services as well as Dan Nelson, with information and technology senior project manager, and I believe we got Mike Jasante, a deputy director, with it with us as well this evening. So pleased to be here this evening to talk about a narrow, trenching standard update as part of the design and construction standards.

[149:11] So it's 1st here we need to start with the purpose of why we are bringing the narrow trenching standard in front of Tab. So, as you all are probably aware. But just to make sure, we cover the base. Since 2018, the city of boulder has been busy delivering and implementing a fiber broadband backbone network, and you may have seen over the course of the last few years various utility crews, installing primarily by the mean of what's called boring, which is not open excavation, but using a trenchless technology to install the fiber backbone primarily along the city's major arterials and collectors to put in place

[150:07] the key infrastructure to build upon for expanding and providing community Internet throughout the entire city. And so, having completed that milestone of delivering the backbone. The city is now ready to move forward with phase 2 of the effort which is actually building off that backbone and providing connections to residents and businesses all around the the remainder of the community. and as we are embarking on that effort, the It Department has been working with outside vendors to get feedback about what we can do to be an attractive community partner, to make it cost effective for them to come to our community to deliver on that commitment of delivering Internet to cost effective and affordable Internet services to our community.

[151:06] And what we've heard is that while it's great that we accommodate with trenchless technology to make the connections to neighborhoods and residents along more local streets, that we need to expand our standards for accommodating a technology called narrow trenching, which is a more cost, effective means of installing conduit and fiber. To these the next level of the work that is coming. And so, in order to accommodate that, we need to update our design and construction standards, and, as you probably know, but just as a reminder, the city is guided by the boulder revised Code. That's our that's our legal code. And the code tells us things like a street should have sidewalks, and a street should have tree lawns and a street should have places for drainage to go, and things of that nature.

[152:05] how the design and construction standards differs from the Boulder Revised Code, or the Brc. Is, it gets much more technical in nature, and it says, Not not just. We know we need sidewalks, but a sidewalk should be X feet wide, and it should be so many inches thick, and it should be comprised of this type of concrete with this certain type of cement, and this certain amount of water, and this certain amount of aggregate. So it gets very much into the detail. And so there are a variety of chapters in the Dcs that cover various infrastructure inside the public right of way and the city. And so we are going to be bringing forward this Update of the Dcs. To accommodate the narrow trenching standard which entails updates primarily to chapter 8 and Chapter 9, which are the transportation material standards and the utility standards for installing underground infrastructure.

[153:01] And so this has been a partnership that Valerie noted where transportation and information and technology, planning and development services and the utilities department have all been working together to identify what these standards should look like and what they can, and how they can be brought forward in a way that are consistent with our overarching departmental plans. And so we're going to now talk a little bit more about where we've been in this process, and the next steps. So through the latter part of last year we started a preliminary study to understand how other communities around the country have accommodated this narrow, trenching standard and tried to understand what their lessons learned have been as they've worked with a variety of different Internet service providers in delivering community Internet.

[154:01] we hired an outside consultant that prepared a summary and provided some recommendations for us, and then we use that as a basis for creating some draft standards where we then worked as a commute, as a internal working group to develop our own standard. We reviewed it and revised it, and then took it out into the community for engagement, and then have provided and revised those standards. And here we are now in the 4th quarter of the current year, asking for tab and planning board feedback prior to going to city council for approval. So, as part of the community engagement effort, we shared our proposed standards and the technical drawings and visuals to help folks get a sense of what these narrow trenching standards mean, and how they will impact our existing infrastructure, and what our plan is for adopting it. And we held 2 remote sessions in this back in the summer.

[155:04] one with community advocacy groups such as community cycles in the center for people with disabilities and another with Internet service providers. And with this we have sought to get information about how to accommodate both the Internet service providers and the needs of our community. And we use illustrations and photos such as this to help folks understand what a narrow trench actually looks like. So when we're talking narrow trench. It's actually, really, really narrow. One to 3 inches is what it looks like. And so what you're seeing here is an example of a street cut on the outside of a local neighborhood street. You're then also seeing the conduit going in, and then on the right side, this image is depicting what the surface restoration looks like after the installation of the the conduit is in place.

[156:04] and after presenting this information, what we've heard is that we needed to make some modifications to our depth requirements to vary based upon existing pavement, thickness and deepening, to make sure that at certain curb types that we've got sufficient depth providing additional backfill and pavement requirements for the various types of restoration materials which we won't bore you with too many of those technical details tonight, but they are all included in your memo, and also allowed various types of additional conduit materials, and the goal here has been to strive to achieve a balance between the advocacy and Internet service interest to allow trenching at the lip of curb and gutter, and to not allow it to take place in wheel paths. whether for cyclists, people are rolling, or people that are driving vehicles, because those are the areas where we create weakened surfaces in our pavement. And, as you all know, we strive to maintain the integrity of our infrastructure, and we also want that surface to be safe for all people who are traveling on it.

[157:19] And so in narrow width bike lanes, we're going to require full width repaving so that we don't have a situation of an undulating surface for folks that are cycling. So the specific sections include updates to Chapter 8, specifically how we're going to accommodate roadway restorations and the cover coat material, which is a new standard, the excavation entrenching standard in chapter 9, which addresses width, depth, and materials and restoration requirements, as well as the cable and conduit materials. and then we also have corresponding drawings in Chapter 11 that will cover what the trench standard looks like.

[158:04] So this is an example of a narrow trench adjacent to a gutter, and this is depicting an installation where we would have it inside the bicycle lane. I think it's important to note, as I said, that the phase. One of the broadband effort was primarily on the arterials and the collectors, which is where the majority of the bicycle lanes, whether they're standard bicycle lanes buffered or protected. The majority of those bicycle facilities are located on collectors and arterials. There are some such as neighborhood green streets that are more local in nature. The majority of the phase. 2 effort will be on local streets primarily, where we do not have dedicated facilities for bicycles where we do have it, though we're proposing that it needs to be a full width repaving of that bicycle lane.

[159:00] And this is an example of what it would look like. This is actually an image taken from Salt Lake City, a similar climate. It was important for us to understand how this materials and the infrastructures held up in colder climates like we have here in Boulder to make sure that the impact to our infrastructure is is minimized. And what we've learned and seen in talking with other communities is this type of installation has no impact to plows that snow plows do not pull it up when it is hit, not impactful. The bicycle tires and no impacts to adjacent road surface pavement condition index levels. So where possible, the 2.0 broadband effort will take place in softscapes. But where it needs to take place in the streets will be using this narrow, trenching standard. and the chip sealant will address the visual impact so that it looks more like this image right here on the right side than what you're seeing here, where you can see that very clear patching line. The goal is to minimize that visual aspect aesthetic impact with the material type.

[160:17] So from here our next steps are to provide an informational update to planning board. and then with the feedback we get from Transportation Advisory Board and Planning Board, provide final updates to this Dcs Update and request City Council recommend and approve these changes to the Dcs which will occur by ordinance, and hopefully in November. And with that our question for you is, are these Dcs Updates consistent with city and transportation master plan, goals and objectives. And just as a reminder, our highest priority in terms of investment in the transportation master Plan

[161:00] is to provide system maintenance to preserve the integrity of our infrastructure to streets and bridges and system operations, and maintaining safety, and also to maintain the investment that we have put in place over the many years and decades. So that's our question for you, and happy to take any feedback. I'm going to stop sharing, but happy to bring it back up. If you have any questions about the information presented. Thanks. Garrett looks like Trini has something for you. Hi Garrett, yeah. Well, I was really lucky to attend a meeting prior to this. That focused on this. And you guys answered every single question that I had regarding you know what, the how, how bicycling would be impacted by this. And I think you know everything that we've learned from this process is like a no brainer, and I think we should go ahead and give it a go. I was very impressed, and just the whole entire process seems so like

[162:03] very, very I don't know. Like almost effortless right? I mean, it just seems like a great way to tackle this, and I think it's a great idea. At least that's my feedback, and especially because it doesn't impact the the actual in like the way the the road would be. God! I can't think my brain's not working. I'm sorry I can't formulate a thought, but yeah, that the the integrity of the road that's the word I was looking for was not going to be impacted, and it wouldn't undulate. It wouldn't like create any any hazard for anybody traveling. and it was just easy and cost worthy. So that's all I've got for now. Great. Thank you for the feedback. Thank you.

[163:00] Thank you. Anyone else. Tab Garrett, I know community cycles gave the sent some feedback on this. Oh, I know I saw a draft did community cycles submit feedback on this item. Yes, I know that they were presented. This information, and my recollection is that they did provide feedback. Mark and Dan feel free to chime in. If you have more detail to share. Yeah, they they did actually provide some feedback. it was. It was actually all in line with all the previous items that were presented, or or you know, any thoughts that were were given to us were all in the same line, so there was nothing new provided to us from community cycles. Okay, that's sort of in in line with my recollection. I I remember that there had been some question about if it has to be

[164:08] parallel to, or perpendicular or diagonal to the direction of travel. And I and I was I I was surprised that that was even an open question. Has that been resolved. Yeah. Some some of the the questions that came up about the parallel versus perpendicular cuts had to do with the the so-called main line that runs through the street similar to water and sewer lines. You have those that run parallel in the roadway, and then there's crossings in order for them to tap into tap into that new line. So if you recall the picture images that that Garrett had up, that there was 3 images there. If you want to pull that up real quick, Garrett, I'll just help me explain the difference between the perpendicular and parallel. But to clarify the perpendicular cuts. What if they happen to go across a sidewalk or underneath the sidewalk, and they cut the sidewalk or path? The entire panel of the path has to be replaced. They don't get to make that little sliver in our infrastructure on the concrete sections of of sidewalks and multi-use paths.

[165:15] So if you look at the 1st image in this, in this on this screen here, there's a there's a good example of what a tie in point looks like. So that's the part that connects from the main conduit to the actual property itself. and to the left of this would probably be a sidewalk or a path. They're pretty much tunneling underneath that to get to get through it larger paths, you know that. My guess is, it's too cost prohibitive for them to cut and replace the entire panel like on one of our 12 foot multi-use paths. Not ideal to go that route. So they're going to be tunneling under that. So in the topic of perpendicular tie-ins, you know, that's this is an example of what it would. It would look like. The actual cuts are going to be limited, and if they do, it's full concrete replacement. And then the parallel cuts are what you see, you know, going down the lip line of the curb.

[166:15] Okay. Mike, you have a hand up. Yeah. So what is the rationale for putting this in a bike lane rather than in the car lanes? Yeah, th, there's, you know, there's definitely different options that can be done for narrow trenching. This has been determined one of the least impactful. You know, for you know, for for all one reason being that you're you're avoiding the wheel paths where there could be, you know, potential impacts to the infrastructure going down the wheel paths. If you were to move this out, you know a little bit further, you know, ideally, it's it's gonna line up with the the separation of all the other utilities.

[167:00] because those are still factors that they have to put into place before they even decide on where this is going to go. So if there were a water main right below the the curb line it wouldn't be an optimal location for them to to place in that location because it wouldn't meet the standards of separation. So there, there's there's actually multiple options that can be done. The lip lines. One that was just called out is, you know, more ideal because it's it's not actually making a an additional cut in the roadway. It's leaving it on the on the lip line occur where it's easily sealed, and it just it just leaves leaves a cleaner look to the street. and if, as Garrett mentioned in the presentation. Really keep in mind to the whole bike Lane scenario. If they're in a bike lane that's less than 3 foot wide they do have to mill an overlay that entire width of the bike lane and replace it with new asphalt. If if it's a larger Bike Lane. That and that trenches is really just right there on the lip line of the edge. They're not required to mill and overlay that section.

[168:10] But you know again, there's so many bike lanes in town that are are pretty narrow. But again, most of those are on main corridors where this is likely not going to be seen. And if it were to happen, you know, if it were to actually take place in one of those bike lanes, it's going to be milled and overlaid. Okay, tab any other feedback questions. seeing none, I think we will carry on. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, that brings us to matters matters from staff. Thank you, Tila. I'm going to hand it over to John and the team to present the next item on the bike pedestrian and transit mapping and not to steal their thunder. But just a reminder that these were distributed through email to tab members. And so we're going to just provide additional context tonight and opportunity for your feedback discussion. Thanks.

[169:21] Thank you, Valerie, and good evening, Tab members. My name is John Mcfarlane, senior transportation Planner. In the planning division. As Valerie mentioned, I'll be giving a brief update tonight on our new bike walk and transit maps that transportation and mobility staff staff have worked on this year, and we're now excited to be sharing with you all in the community. I'll quickly share some background on the project and the new maps, and then provide details on each of the bike walk and transit maps and then share some next steps with you all.

[170:02] So our last update to the city's combined bike and pedestrian map was 2019, the 2019 map was available only in a static Pdf version on our website or in a print physical copy that we shared with community members at our engagement events with the update to the bike and pedestrian map staff saw several opportunities for improving its functionality and the user experience. This included opportunities to increase the accessibility of the map through online interactive versions updating the bike facility nomenclature to make it more intuitive to the general public increasing the focus on walking in the map and then highlighting new capital project infrastructure that has been implemented since 2019 for a new transit map. We also haven't had a recent boulder specific transit map. And so wanted to provide this resource for community members as well.

[171:03] Starting with the updated bike map, we developed an online interactive version of the map through Artgis online. And we met with community cycles and they provided their feedback earlier this summer before the map went live. This fall. Users of the online version can view the entire city bike network. In addition to recreational routes, such as the circle boulder by Bike B, 360 and B 180 rides. A highlight of the updated bike map is a focus on recommended crosstown routes in the city and so recommended. Crosstown routes are highlighted in yellow and form the north, south, and east, west spines of the low stress bike network using existing on and off street bike facilities. And we really see these, you know, in the map helping users plan direct and comfortable routes across Boulder. In addition, the updated map features a simplified legend shown on the left there of the image

[172:01] for bike facilities compared to our 2019 version, and users can view a range of destinations such as bike shops and schools that are interesting to them. So in the online map, they can kind of toggle off what destinations they want to view. Additionally, the online version is also mobile, friendly for smartphone use, and users have the option of enabling GPS and tracking the ride by pressing the play button showing here at the top of the screen, stop the image here of the of the phone screen here. And so I'll just play a quick video of this here demonstrating the track. My ride feature. There's no audio to this, so shouldn't be hearing any any audio. But this is an example of you know, someone tracking their ride in the in the new interactive version on their phone, which is pretty cool. So if you want to remember, what routes you have taken.

[173:01] In addition to the online version, we also developed a physical print version of the bike map shown here on the right and given the scale of the update. We did a smaller initial print run to Beta, test the bike and walk maps with community members before a larger printing next year. similar to the online version. A focus of the print map is the recommended crosstown routes, and with the goal of the print version being that is legible and intuitive for someone to use it to plan their trip by bike. The print version also features a subset of destinations from the online version. So we're not showing the range of destinations that someone might want to bike to, but just a subset of those on the print version. And there's also new supplemental content, such as the definitions for for our bike facilities. On the back of the map shown shown on the on the left, here and there's also a QR code on the print map to the online map. So users can use both to explore Boulder's bike network. And over the last couple of weeks we have been distributing the print versions to to our community partners and and local bike shops.

[174:09] So in addition to the bike map, as I mentioned, we also developed an online version and print version of a new dedicated walk map. And we we got feedback from polar walks on this similar to how we got feedback from community cycles on the on the bike map. and so similar to the online bike map, the online walk map shown on the left on the screen. Here features several layers and destinations users can explore, including recreational walks developed by boulder walks and points of interest, such as public art, notable trees and transit and micro mobility options. If someone wants to walk, to connect to those transit options. the online version is also mobile, friendly, similar to the bike map. the print version shown on the right highlights, the Boulder Walk, 180 routes and destinations, such as transit centers, city parks and open space and Mountain Park trailheads.

[175:00] It also contains additional information on the back of the map about walking in Boulder, and also has a QR code to the online version to help inspire community members to explore boulder by walking or rolling. Finally, we also developed a new interactive online boulder specific transit map, the map features, both local and regional routes operated by Rtd. The city and Cu. Boulder and their associated transit stops shown here on the right. Other points of interest on the map include park and rides and popular destinations accessible by transit such as trailheads and neighborhood centers. A key feature of the transit map is being able to click on a route and receive information on service levels here. So I have an example here of clicking on the bound on 30th Street and getting information on the days of the week and and times of the day that service is provided. You can also click on bus stops shown on the bottom here for schedule information for route serving the stop.

[176:03] the new transit map, better highlights, the many transit options in Boulder, and we help. We think it'll help people plan their trip by transit. So yeah, so next steps for these updated maps include distributing them to the community. As I mentioned, we've begun to share print versions of the walk and bike maps with our community partners, local bike shops. And I've also done this at our recent in-person engagement events. and if any member of the Board would like a print copy. Please feel free to reach out to me. My email is listed there, and I'd be happy to help coordinate, get you one. And then, as I mentioned previously, we are receiving feedback on the, on the print walk and bike maps, so I encourage you all to to review and share any feedback with us that you may have. This concludes my presentation, and myself and other members of the project team are online here, and are happy to answer any questions you all may have.

[177:00] Thanks very much. Trini's had her hand up for forever. I've had. That idea when I saw this, and I just didn't want to forget. So this is amazing. And I am so happy that that this is available digitally, and I think it could be such a useful resource for other things, including gathering data. And I know that there's going to be like a privacy concern, and all this stuff. But if people that are using these these apps, or this this resource to track their journeys, could we somehow ask them to kind of share the data. And that way we have an additional resource to to know where people are moving and what routes are being used the most, you know, by foot and by bike, and even transit, and therefore apply that to our snow removal. Going back to the very beginning of the meeting, for example, and prioritizing those corridors that I know that we currently use other other data sources. But this would be a really interesting one to kind of integrate into the data we already have.

[178:11] So. Yeah, yeah, thank you so much, Jenny, for for that comment and the intent of allowing folks to to track the ride. The intent wasn't to select data from them. And it's not a capability that we have on the back end of Arcgis online, but rather just a resource that we want to provide to folks to you know. Track the ride and kind of remember the routes that they're taking, you know, if they are using one of our new crosstown recommend crosstown routes, and they kind of want to remember it. That's kind of the functionality that that the online tracking feature provides on on a mobile phone. But would it be really complicated to kind of integrate that into the the like? Drop, drop down menu, type of thing, and just say, hey? And this would be used to better the way we move around town and so forth. So people are aware we wouldn't by no means try to like steal there, and that would be very invasive and very scary. But if you know, you know, I mean you want to share your routes, or even just to share them. So other people can know that these are like cool routes, you know, kind of like a struggle.

[179:20] Kind of thing. Yeah. John, I guess maybe just I think you spoke to how that is just a limitation of the platform. And you know we. We can look into that a little bit more. But I think that's that's kind of where that's our understanding of of what the platform can do. But, Tila, I'll just also I mean Trini. I'll also mention that. We do get some really great data through our partnership with Lime and B cycle on. And. Where we see a density of trips that can help inform some of the programs that you were mentioning earlier. Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. No? Well, thank you.

[180:00] Thanks. Is that it? Trini. Yes. Hey! Seriously. Go ahead! Okay, thank you so much, John. I know that this has been a massive project. And it's it's taken a long time, but it's been fantastic. And you really did a great job. I want to strongly encourage you, please, to update all the city's websites with these new tools. When you currently Google. city of boulder bike map. You don't get the new stuff. And I. So I came up against this. I was trying to show someone the new map, and I didn't have one with me, so I didn't have the QR. Code to scan, and I hadn't saved it for some. I don't know why I hadn't saved it, but I hadn't saved it in my browser on my phone. So I couldn't find it online. So I and I noticed that your, so the bike website and the boulder walks website, both of those are missing these new resources. And I would put them top front and center. Make sure that everyone knows where they are include the transit maps on both pages, probably because people who are walking and bicycling are also using transit often.

[181:10] But please get those updated because these resources are so great, and I want people to know them. And I want it to be the 1st thing that they find when they go looking for bike and pedestrian maps. But thank you for this amazing resource, and of course we've been giving them out like crazy. So thanks. Yeah, thank you for that. Darcy 100. And just to add to that also because we had mentioned the new police dashboard on serious crashes, that is also suffering the same problem. It is not the page of Google results. So there have been several several people I've talked to and said, like, there's this new dashboard, and they can't find it cause they're googling it. So I don't. I don't know what. What voo do you have to do do to get Google to.

[182:01] You have depression. Differentially return that result. But it's it's it's not just this, it's citywide. So. But it's not just the googling. It's like actually putting putting. Yeah. On the city's bike and pedestrian pages, because you. Right link directly. There. Things. Yeah, because only the old resources are on there now. So replace the old resources with the new ones. Okay, trainee. You were trying to weigh in here. Yeah, yeah, sorry. And I think the thing is that you have to kind of pay to to be like the top result. So I don't know. I mean, it seems, you know. bizarre and just, not correct and not right. But I think that's the common practice. Okay, Mike, go ahead. Yeah, this looks cool. I'm actually just trying it now for the 1st time. and I guess I just have a technical question, because I'm I hit the little play button to find my location, and it's showing me about a half mile from where I actually am. So is that, have people been testing this.

[183:07] Yeah, we have been testing it. And if I know Daniel, who's online, if you're able to come off, I know you have a little bit more experience with the with the track, my ride feature, so I may ask you to to jump in here. Maybe Mike is using his neighbor's wi-fi. I I tried turning off my wi-fi, it should be in the same place. Alright. Well, troubleshooting it should. Should that go to email, or what? Yeah, what. Yeah, what's a good way to get. Feedback. That's a great question. What's a good way to get feedback here? Did. What's the best way for users to give the city feedback on it. Now that we're kind of testing it and releasing it. Yeah, you can share so my emails on the screen here, if you want to shoot any comments to me on the map, but then also on the online map, I think we do have kind of the first, st the 1st screen there. There is an option to provide feedback on the on the map. And so that can go to our, I think that goes to our general transportation mobility

[184:16] kind of email. Who can? Who can route to us. Yeah, we're happy to send out some some specifics after the meeting through email to tab members and you know, Daniel, I don't know if you have any anything you might just want to mention in terms of, like someone's own personal location settings on their device, whether it's iphone or android. I'm sure they're very different, or or may just need another. Look at how precise you allow your phone to be things like that. Do you have anything you want to add. Here. No, I was gonna touch on that a little bit, and just that. It kind of varies based on android to iphone and your specific location permissions and kind of how. how private you have have those set. So you can grant those to this particular website to enable more accuracy. But it is a little fine grained troubleshooting to to sort that out. So happy to work with you, though on it, Mike, if if you continue to have problems.

[185:13] Yeah, thank you, Daniel. And I'll just address the other question about the searchability of these resources. You know, I think. The Browser. Based searches are one thing, but we will pass along your feedback to our communication and engagement department on the search function that's on the boulder. Website. You can always go to the search, icon at the top of the homepage and and search for keywords, and that may also be what Darcy was mentioning was was not revealing a quick, direct link. So we'll we'll give that feedback to to the Cne department. Yeah, just to clarify Valerie. You know whether you're searching through a browser or searching on the website. It takes you to the page that has the old resources. So that's what I'm I'm just. I'm just encouraging those resources to get updated on the pages.

[186:14] Thanks, Darcy. Thank you, Darcy. Okay. Thanks, team, I have. I have nothing to add. That was terrific feedback from Cap. Thank you. Looking forward to it. Okay, is that it for matters from staff. That is. Thank you. Okay? Then we move along to matters from the board. So 1st I wanna pick up on the letter from Tab about funding priorities in the budget. That we raised in August. Mike did a really terrific job in drafting a letter I sent around, I think on Friday.

[187:05] a link to a Google Doc? Which actually, I should probably pull up now. Oh, now I have to remember how to do this I've made. After some consultation with Valerie, some very minor changes to the draft that I had circulated on Friday, but it's still the same link. Here we go and if you don't mind, I'm just gonna pull up the letter here. So Mike and I obviously have worked on this and at this point. If Trini and Darcy have any changes to suggest, then this is kind of where we would do that. Well, from what I was able to look over, I think it looks great, so.

[188:00] Okay. Be good with what we have. Okay, did I successfully share? Oh, oh, oh, yeah, I'm screen sharing. There we go. Yeah, I. Appreciate. This effort, Mike and Tila. yeah, the the call for the kind of maintenance of of matching funds is really important, and I appreciate you detailing that here. So yeah. So I was able to confirm after Mike and I worked on this with Valerie in particular, that they that it's called like tip matching fan matching funds, slash tmp, implementation, and that's basically because tip is sort of the biggest sort of grant opportunity that we, you know, usually go dipping into the to the bucket for for matching grants. But it's not only that's not the only time that we would be called upon to the city would be called upon to pony up matching funds. And so this is kind of for all of the potential Grant Grant opportunities.

[189:10] And similarly, this letter is mostly focused on can, and like sort of the outstanding can aspirations, I suppose. The the to do list on can. But it's not, of course, limited to to can funding. But hopefully, the thrust of the letter is clear. We wanna key ability to provide matching funds in order to competitively when grant opportunities as they arise? And because can has been identified as sort of a big priority and as part of the safe streets report, and and you know the source of most of our injurious crashes. Are these arterials, and that's why we're focusing on can. But none of none of this is supposed to

[190:09] presuppose or or preclude spending on other grant opportunities in other places. as as these needs arise. I. So as it is now, it's a little over one page, and just in previous dealings with city council. and feedback we've gotten from city council shirt is good and so tonight I was sort of hoping that we could find places to cut this down. If we could kind of winnow it down to one page. Now I recognize we're a little little behind schedule. It's 9 11 right now. It's not super critical to me that we cut it out but I was curious, and I didn't wanna undercut a lot of Mike's effort and research and all these like links.

[191:06] But in particular. what's the feeling of tab about calling out these 5 areas of can that in particular are are remaining unfunded. Or that we haven't identified or secured funding for as opposed to sort of telling them, there's a whole bunch of can that's still left that we need to fund I'm just not convinced that most of city council is going to be going through and and clicking these hyperlinks and reading all of the the background information. And so, if I had a suggestion about where the letter is at the moment it would be to just leave the sentence, however, significant sections of can still require detailed design and construction funding along all 5. You know, areas. yeah. and just leave sort of the specifics out because it's basically construction funding. What do you think about that? Mike?

[192:00] Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay. I think some of that detail is in the letter that community cycles is writing. That's true. Okay. So if I could just take a stab at that mean. that's the quick and dirty way to do it. No, it's good. Significant sections of the can still require detailed design and construction funding. and then we can leave sort of the details. The the blow by blow to the community. Cycles letter that I think is still forthcoming.

[193:02] Does this get us down to one page? It does. Is this gonna be submitted by email? Yes, so I I think, even even though we're, you know, special, I think so far, most of my communications on behalf of Tab in the past year to council has been going through the public portal that everybody else does. So. Yes, it will be coming coming through email. So there's no such thing as pages. Okay, pages would be an indication of how long it is. Yeah. You still want to keep it concise. Yeah, make it make it readable. Well make it to the point, shorten to the point. Do want to attach an actual letter on word or pages. Okay, that's fine. The Pdf.

[194:00] That's that makes sense. And then, typically for a letter like this at the bottom, I we would name out individual members, and in particular in in particularly, because this is approved tonight. And Jen Oaks is not here. I would list the 4 members, and not all 5 just to clarify that. That's that's who weighed in on this. Sounds good. Okay, any other revisions, comments, feedback. No, I think this is great. Thank you guys, for for putting this together. Yeah, no, largely, largely. Mike's work. Thank you so much, Mike. Thank you, Mike. Thanks for your help. Okay, then. Just show of hands. We're good with me. sticking our names on here and submitting it to council. And thank you, Trini. I will attach it as a as a word document which will look like a page.

[195:00] Or Pdf. Yeah, I'll I'll do something like that. Probably a Pdf is the smarter thing to do. Okay. Grazie, look how quick that was. Okay, next? Well, I gotta play with my screen. I'm gonna stop sharing my screen so I can see all y'all again. next update on October 1, 2024, planning board. So that is an item related to, do you remember that there was a second request of Tab for a change in the transportation connections plan on the Boulder Valley Regional Center. Something like that. But this is the parcel that was between spruce and Pearl and Folsom and 26th Street, where there's something like 52 townhomes, and we were asked to remove a multi-use path, or to to modify our requirement for a multi-use path and which we did agree to do in exchange for a permanent public easement.

[196:13] And so I just attended the meeting on October first, st to kind of make sure that the things that we had described and talked about at our Tab meeting in August were acknowledged, recognized, and adhered to during the hearing at planning board. Please do report. Yes, was all carried through, and, in fact, that the one of the other items that really wasn't up to tab. But we had weighed in on specifically around fencing around the property that the applicant was no longer pursuing that. And so I'm hoping that our our feedback about how that was disfavored, and I could tell that planning board would also not be in favor of that. But apparently that message was received, and so I think that was useful feedback. And I appreciate

[197:04] our discussion at Tab. I think this is a time that we've we've made a development better. And hopefully have made a case for more integration and coordination between planning board. and Transportation Advisory Board, as we have asked repeatedly for in the past, but I'm hoping that you know, the more we can show that it's A useful collaboration and a useful sort of service that we provide to weigh in on transportation connections. That that the more integrated these kinds of items will be. So that's all I wanted to report on that. And then next World day of remembrance. Trini. you have an update for us on that. Yeah. So we've been working quite hard and well with and and Valerie's here so she could also fill you guys in. But we have decided to hold the date role day of remembrance, not on the actual Sunday, because Denver is gonna hold a very large event.

[198:10] and so kind of like making sure that people that want to attend both events can do so. We will do a similar event as we did. The last couple of years, but especially last year, where where we got together during the day. I think that's gonna be really great. So people can do it in whatever means of transportation they choose to. I mean. we're also talking to a bike shop to see if they'd like to join us. Kind of like what what happened last year, which was very organic. That full cycle ride came over and joined us at the courthouse and kind of rode together. And there's another ride that was hosted by one of our local teams. And so it it's

[199:00] it's really shaping up to be a really beautiful event. We're also gonna have support from Boulder County. I believe one of the Commissioners might be attending and speaking as well as you know, some members are from city Council, and hopefully our mayor and some crash survivors. So it's kind of like a a very similar event, that of that that we had last year. We will. We're attempting to end at the band shell and use the band shell as part of where we will stage some of the things that we're thinking about as part of the memorial part of it. So. and we've had some really great meetings leading up to today, and I don't know if Valerie wants to add something Yeah, thanks for that overview. Trini. I think, as you said in years past, it really has just grown every year and expanded its reach. This really is an event for the community by the community brings together just an array of groups, even individuals. It's a really special moment

[200:19] so excited to to help facilitate the things that we can on the city side this year again, and work with Trini and others, and I think the collaboration with Boulder County. Even city of Longmont is a very special new dynamic this year that we're looking forward to having that more regional coordination for an event like this. It's just. It's very special, and speaks volumes about the work that we're doing as jurisdictions, but also in partnership with everyone out there working on these issues so huge, thanks to Trini for always being the guiding light in this.

[201:01] I think that's that's all I have to add. Thank you so much, Valerie. You're so sweet. This isn't okay. Any other items from the board open board. Comment. I just wanted to add something about something that happened to me a week ago, which I'm sure many of us who are pedestrians and cyclists have experienced where I felt I I could have easily been killed. Just coming home on on the south side of Baseline. From sprouts crossing 30th Street towards Williams village, and I had a a pedestrian signal on the crosswalk. I'm I'm on my bike and this car heading west on Baseline, making a left on the 30.th Just came at alarming speed right in front of me across the crosswalk. And

[202:07] I guess that's a that's an intersection with an unprotected left. Turn there. And it just obviously the driver was in the wrong. but it's just really brought home to me How we could be designing our streets. Better, maybe, to avoid that kind of situation. Thanks, Mike. I'm just gonna bite my tongue here. I don't. I don't need to end this whole meeting on a sour note. But no, you're not alone in that experience. May I? Even though this is matters from the board? I just want to acknowledge Mike. I'm sorry that you experienced that. It's it's always really important for us to hear those experiences, those personal accounts

[203:13] on the staff side here. So thank you for sharing that. Thank you. I mean, okay. So, Mike, you're raising it now. But did you fill out an inquire boulder ticket? No, I'm. Did you? Did you report it to Boulder police. No. I don't know that we have a very good mechanism in this city for logging these close calls. We do have a close calls form that you can. Yes, we do. Folder. I don't use it. I would use it multiple times a week. If. I was actually really diligent about it. Yeah, and it does take time. So you know, when we hear these kinds of accounts, or we get them through email or other channels. We. We also pass them along to staff to log. Because that is our way of really collecting that data. So, Mike, of course, if you want to take the time to fill that in? You're welcome to but that is, that is the system we have.

[204:15] It helps us track trends over time. Understand? If there are, you know, locations that are popping up more frequently. And again, it also informs it's it's data that we look at when we're doing project development on on enhancements to the system. And as a tab member, maybe that would be something interesting for you to actually, you know, follow through with Mike. Because, as you're hearing. This is like really important data. And you know, maybe that's something that we can also promote at another. You know, at a messaging campaign type of level. And how do I find this. I am so sorry I missed what you said.

[205:00] How do I find this place to report? Is it? Inquire, Boulder. Gallery. Close, call from. Yeah, happy i 1. The easiest way is to go into that. That search function at the top of the city of Boulder website when you're just on the home page, there's a little magnifying glass type for close calls. If you can also type in, inquire boulder and then there's kind of a menu of all these different things, and that's a little bit more cumbersome to go through, because you're looking at like all sorts of topics. So those are just a couple of ways, and if you're having any trouble, please reach out to me, and I can help walk you through it. Thanks, so much. I think that system is woefully inadequate and vastly undercounts the close calls that are happening, and probably over, counts

[206:01] the close calls that are happening to the handful of very involved and potentially over entitled members of our community. So. I mean, we. We have a responsibility also, like as part of tab to kind of amplify those things because those are resources that even other cities don't have right. So at least we have that. And if we can engage to the community to kind of like, become more active and use their rage, you know, instead of saying, Oh, my God, you know! Why doesn't anything get done. Happy. Well, how about doing something? So people can know what's happening. And kind of you know, highlight where these things are happening. I think I don't know. I think we we could help as well as part of Tab. Thanks for that trainee hat tip to you. Appreciate that. I'm I'm not usually such a big cynic, but on this one I really am. So thank you for. For the optimism. And

[207:01] yeah. the the boat of accountability appreciate it. Okay, 2 quick things our November Tab meeting is not the second to monday. It's the 3rd Monday. So it's November 18.th Be thank you, Meredith. And I I actually had it wrong in my calendar. So I really appreciate that. So November 18 is the November meeting and then, secondly, I wasn't aware that this didn't go out to all members of boards. And I'm looking through my email during this meeting, and I couldn't find it to forward to you. But I think Meredith is, gonna manage to get it forwarded to everybody who needs to. But there is a specific training opportunity being offered. It's virtual it is like a webinar, and it will be recorded. So if you miss it, you can get it later. But if if you miss it, then you and you have questions. You won't. You'll be talking into the void. My understanding is that's on October 29.th

[208:11] What day of the week is that it's a weekday, and I think it was something like 10 or 11 in the morning. I don't have it in. I don't know. I don't have it in my calendar so, and I couldn't find it on my thing, so I didn't make a special note. So I'm like, I'm on my way out. I've seen your Itis here. But I do it. It is an opportunity, and Meredith said she will manage to get it forwarded to all of all of you Trini probably already got it, because you're the current vice chair. But I think this would be valuable training. Just you. You have to know how how to do this stuff. In particular. There's only 4 of us at the moment. You know, and if I'm gone, you know, or Trini's gone like someone's gonna have to maybe step in. And so I would. I would really appreciate if you could

[209:01] attend the training or or just follow up and watch it later on, because this is going to be relevant for you kids. whippersnappers. I have nothing further. Does anyone have anything else matters from the board. Future agenda. Topics, of course, always welcome. If you have thoughts, opinions, desires. and we are having our agenda setting meeting, I think it's next Tuesday. So if you have, if you have big ideas or are wondering or want to know, you know, when's the next time we're we're gonna have a check in on Xyz. This is a good time to do that and think about it and reach out to me or training Grazie. With that I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

[210:00] I move to adjourn. Oh! Second, let's get out of here. Yeah. Alright. Thank you. Everyone. Thanks very much. Thank you. Everybody. Bye. Good night.